World Marxist Review 1959-11: Vol 2 Iss 11

Workers of All Countries, Unite!

World
Marxist

Review

PROBLEMS
OF PEACE

and

SOCIALISM

NOVEMBER, 1959
WORKERS OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! VOL, 2, NO. 11

World Marxist Review:
Problems of Peace and Socialism

Theoretical and Information Journal
of Communist and Workers' Parties

CONTENTS

Disarmament Is Not a Utopia .....................-....-.-....-.-- 3
L. ILYICHOV: Peaceful Coexistence and the Struggle of Two Ideologies 7
H. APTHEKER:

Public Opinion Opposes the "Cold War" (letter from the USA) 17
T. ULJABAYEV: A Nation Rejuvenated by the October Revolution 22
K. BAGDASH: Two Trends in the Arab National Movement 28
A. GOSH: Kerala 35

JOURNALS OF FRATERNAL PARTIES (REVIEW)

P. TOGLIATTI: History of the Communist International—Some Problems 43

IN THE COMMUNIST AND WORKERS’ PARTIES

Forthcoming Congress of the Hungarian Socialist Workers’ Party 53
The People of Portugal Step Up the Struggle ....... 57
A. SANTOS: Overcoming Sectarian Errors .................. : 58
JOHN HILL: Problems Encountered by Party Members in a Factory 59
SHORT NOTICES ........ eee be ago 62
WORK AMONG THE YOUTH
R. TRIVELLI: The New in Our Movement _......... : 65
A. PINIERA: Uniting the Youth of the Country ........ : 68
S. MITRA: Our Task—To Organize All Young People _.. a. oO
EXCHANGE OF VIEWS
J. PRONTEAU: Economic Effects of the Common Market 73
B. MANZOCCHI: Unity of the People and Anti-Monopoly Forces Against
European "Integration" _...................... pie eet aes en tee i eee ‘ 79
REVIEWS
E, TRUSHCHENKO: Art that Serves Mankind _.............. 85

J. GIBBONS: What's Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy? _. 88
REVIEWS IN BRIEF :......2..22....:...0::.. Beant BAP aedec

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW: Problems of Peace and Socialism is the Canadian edition of the monthly
journal published in Prague under the title: Problems of Peace and Socialism. The Canadian edition
is published by

PROGRESS BOOKS, 42-48 Stafford St., Toronto 3, Ontario, Canada.
Authorized as Second Class Mail, Post Office Department, Ottawa. PRINTED IN CANADA.

SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $3.50 a year. Single copies, 35 cents, Bundle of five or more, 25 cents per
copy. For orders addressed to PROGRESS BOOKS from outside Canada, an additional 25 cents is
required to cover bank and exchange charges.

PROBLEMS OF PEACE AND SOCIALISM is also published in French, Russian, Chinese, Albanian, Bulgari-
an, Czech, Dutch, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Polish, Rumanian, Span-
ish, Swedish, Vietnamese (distributors: Press Circulation Agency, Sadova 3, Prague 6, Czechoslovakia).
Subscriptions to any of these editions may be obtained through Progress Books, 42-48 Stafford St.,
Toronto. Yearly Subscription Rates for the edition in the following languages: French—$6.00. Czech—
$6.50, Russian—$6.50. Spanish—$6.50. German—$3.50.

Disarmament Is Not a Utopia

HE September day in 1959 when Khrush-

chov declared before the international
forum that “the Government of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics submits for con-
sideration by the United Nations a Declara-
tion on Universal and Complete Disarmament
with concrete proposals on the question,” will
without doubt go down in history as an im-
portant milestone on the road to a genuinely
human civilization.

In the past, noble thinkers, advanced people
of their times, offered plans which in one way
or another urged world disarmament. This
is not the first time that the Soviet Union
has submitted to the nations and governments
a proposal for universal peace.

Now, however, under the impact of the
proposals submitted by the head of the Soviet
Government, the people are beginning to
feel that a change has taken place, that
their cherished dream may come true. They
feel, and rightly so, that the way to the
elimination of the most terrible danger that
has ever threatened humanity is now open.

The reckless arms drive into which the
world was plunged hard on the heels of the
Second World War is fast becoming an ua-
bearable burden for the working people. At
a time when technological progress opens
up immeasurable possibilities for higher
living standards and cultural advancement,
millions of young people whose minds and
efforts could be used to conquer the as yet
unexplored fields of nature are occupied with
cleaning gun barrels. Every year over $100
billion are squandered on military needs, a
sum sufficient to provide the population of
the world with bread for a whole year. This
money could provide housing for 9-10 million
families, build 25,000 hospitals with accom-
modation for four million, 50,000 schools or
thousands of factories in which millions could
find employment.

Were the labor wasted on arms produc-
tion put to proper use it would provide the
extra means needed for the satisfaction of
the needs of the people, for rendering aid
to the undeveloped countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America which are anxious to do
away with their age-old economic back-
wardness. One-tenth of the military ex-
penditure of the NATO countries ($60 billion
in 1958) would suffice to build about a
dozen iron and steel plants of the type

now being built in India. The waste of human
labor on the arms drive stands out even more
clearly if we recall that today, in an era of
unprecedented technological progress,
weapons become obsolete almost the mo-
ment they come off the assembly lines and
are scrapped (as is the case with fighter
planes in the USA). And this is taking
place at a time when the burden of taxes is
growing heavier in the capitalist countries,
when one-third of humanity is ill-fed and
millions of people live in shacks and shanty
towns (in the USA with its much-vaunted
American way of life, 13 million families
live in houses unfit for human habitation),
when the children of workers are unable to
attend school (in France where the big
bourgeoisie clamors about the “grandeur” of
the nation thousands of juveniles are unable
to get a secondary or technical education be-
cause of the disgracefully slow — particularly
so this year — rate of school construction).
Militarization in the capitalist countries
strikes hard at the conditions of the people.

Arms, which are being produced at an accel-
erated rate, are not intended for military par-
ades, but for war, which haunts the people
like a nightmare. The destructive power of the
new armaments is such that within a few
hours, in the event of a world conflagration,
large areas of the globe would be turned into
vast Hiroshimas. One H-bomb could reduce a
city of the size of London to a heap of
rubble. Eight of these bombs would be
enough to destroy a country the size of West
Germany. One cannot but feel anxiety at
the thought that United States nuclear
bombers patrol the skies of the NATO
countries carrying their lethal loads. How can
one have peace of mind knowing that in a
number of European countries there are
nuclear bomb dumps in the proximity of the
missile launching sites? As the Chairman of
the USSR Council of Ministers put it, “the
world has reached a point where, on the
strength of some ridiculous accident, such as
a technical fault in a plane carrying a
hydrogen bomb, or a mental abberation in
the pilot behind the controls, war could be
translated into reality.”

Consequently, the “balance of power”
theory which depicts the ceaseless arms drive
as a guarantee of genuine security of peoples
can be described only as a criminal theory.

4

People do not want to live in constant anx-
iety. They have, with renewed hope, wel-
comed the idea underlying the Soviet pro-
posal: the best way to prevent war is to
abolish the means of waging war; the best
guarantee that means of destruction will not
be used is to destroy them.

Now, in the new conditions when the pers-
pective of peaceful coexistence has been
opened up, universal disarmament — the
long-cherished desire of the people — cons-
titutes a call to action, a realizable slogan.
To ensure its materialization the Soviet
Union has proposed a concrete program to
be carried out within four years. Gradually,
in stages, the countries would disband their
armed forces (army, navy and air force),
abolish the general staffs, war ministries and
military training establishments, dismantle
military bases in foreign lands and destroy
all weapons of wholesale annihilation —
nuclear, chemical and bacteriological. Guns,
tanks, projectiles and torpedoes would be
sent to the furnaces and turned into plough-
shares. If such an agreement is reached then
only small contingents of police (militia),
carrying small arms and intended for main-
taining internal order and protecting the
personal safety of citizens, would remain.

The Soviet proposals take cognizance of
the basic objections raised by the Western
powers in the course of the long-drawn out
disarmament talks. The new plan makes it
possible to overcome the main objection,
namely, the question of control.

In stipulating strict control at each stage
the Soviet proposals again refute the gross
lie that the Soviet Union is opposed to all
control. In fact, both the Soviet Union and
the other socialist countries have always
stood for controlled disarmament. The thing
on which they insist (and everyone will
agree that this is sensible) is that this be
control over disarmament and not control
over . . . armaments. There is no use playing
hide and seek: asking for control without dis-
armament is an only too obvious way of lega-
lizing espionage in the guise of “inspection.”
Moreover, there is an excellent way to over-
come the artificially created difficulties about
control: let disarmament be complete and
universal whereupon the very concept of
military secret will be meaningless, and con-
ditions will be created for the fullest inspec-
tion and control, because the countries will
have nothing to hide from one another.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

The Soviet proposals also take into ac-
count the doubts voiced on a number of oc-
casions by the capitalist countries — the
apprehension that limited disarmament would
injure their “security.” The complete and
universal disarmament proposed by the
Soviet Union will place all countries in an
equal position, none will have a military
advantage over the other.

Lastly, these proposals take into account
the fears that the banning of nuclear weapons
will place the Western powers in an unequal
position in respect to the Soviet Union be-
cause of its superiority in armed forces and
conventional arms. In order to dispel these
fears the Soviet Union proposes to start
disarmament by reducing the numerical!
strength of the armed forces and conventional
armaments and thereafter to proceed with
the destruction of stockpiles of nuclear
weapons and to discontinue the manufacture
of all weapons of wholesale annihilation.

Disarmament is possible. To those who
try to sow doubts about the sincerity of the
Soviet plan the people will say: “Why wait
to test the sincerity of the Soviet Union if
you want to make it honor its promise? For
the first time in history a new kind of chal-
lenge has been made (and it has been made
by the Soviet Union): a challenge to compete
in winning peace on earth. Why do you
decline the challenge? What are the reasons,
dare you name them?”

* * *

One would have to have the narrow mind
of a bourgeois diplomat to say, as did a
member of de Gaulle’s delegation at the UN,
that there is “nothing new in the Soviet
proposals.”

True, this is not the first time that the
Soviet Union has submitted similar pro-
posals. Leaving aside mention of Lenin’s
Decree on Peace issued forty-two years ago
on the first day of the October Revolution,
it will not be amiss to recall that at the 1922
Genoa Conference — the first international
conference in which the Soviet Government
participated — Soviet Russia advanced pro-
posals for disarmament. Later, in Geneva in
1927 and 1932, the USSR staunchly defended
before the League of Nations the idea of
universal and complete disarmament.

The initiative on disarmament displayed
by the Soviet state from the very day of its
birth reflects the essence of the socialist
system which, by its very nature, is utterly
opposed to war. The socialist system is. in
effect, power in the hands of the working

maser n &

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 5

class, a class which has never had any stake
in predatory wars. Socialist ownership of

the means of production in the USSR and in _

the other socialist countries leaves no room
for economic groups which would profit from
the arms drive. And proletarian international-
ism — the basic principle of the socialist
system and the world communist movement
—teaches the working people to regard wars
in which the imperialists embroil the peoples
as a heinous crime. This explains why the
spokesman of the Soviet Government told
the League of Nations as early as 1928 that
“no matter what fate awaits our proposal at
the present session of the preparatory com-
mission on disarmament we still believe that
universal and immediate disarmament is the
only effective guarantee of peace, in keeping
not only with the distant ideals of humanity
but with the requirements of the day.”

However, since in those days world war
could yield tremendous profits to the im-
perialist powers the latter made every effort
to bury all the versions of this proposal. The
capitalist governments, in order to white-
wash themselves in the eyes of the masses,
claimed that the peaceful initiative of the
first socialist state was simply an indication
of its weakness. According to them, the “hid-
den intention” of the Soviet Union was to
overcome its military backwardness as com-
pared with the more advanced capitalist
countries by universal disarmament.

Memory of the consequences of the im-
perialist policies of the arms drive and pre-
datory war is still fresh; many bear the re-
minders on their bodies.

Immediately after World War II the Soviet
Union, whose victory over the Hitler armies
tore to shreds the tales about its weakness,
submitted concrete disarmament proposals
in the United Nations. But these too were
turned down. Nevertheless, the Soviet govern-
ment, proving by deeds its desire for peace,
unhesitatingly reduced its armed strength by
over two million men, closed the military
bases it had on the territory of other states
after the war. considerably reduced its
military expenditure, unilaterally suspended
nuclear weapon tests — in a word, it took
the way of disarmament without waiting for
the others to follow suit. The other socialist
countries are pursuing a similar course. To-
day the Soviet Union, which has entered
upon the decisive stage in its development,
which is building communism, which was the
first to launch a moon rocket and an inter-
planetary station, which has demonstrated

its superiority in the sphere of technology,
has, without any hesitation, submitted a dis-
armament program which, if accepted, will
make meaningless the concept of military
superiority or inferiority. This fact alone
creates difficulties for the anti-Soviet and
anti-communist ideofogists in speculating on
the “hidden intentions” of the socialist coun-
tries. These countries have only one desire,
not a hidden one by any means — to ensure
a really stable peace. And they offer the best
of guarantees: their immense strength, their
scientific and technological superiority, which
they propose to place solely at the service
of peace.

A new feature of the times, one that opens
broad horizons before humanity (which the
short-sighted yes-men of the reactionary
bourgeoisie fail to see) is that socialism is
now in a position to ensure realization of the
heartfelt desire for peace on the part of all
peoples.

In other words, we are entering the era
predicted by Lenin in 1920 in his interview
with H. G. Wells. If we were able, Lenin said,
to establish interplanetary communication
this would signify that the technological
potential, having become boundless, would
put an end to violence as a means and method
of progress. Now, nearly forty years after
Lenin spoke these words, we are on the
threshold of this great achievement. The first
to enter on the road to interplanetary com-
munications — and in this there was nothing
fortuitous — was the Soviet Union, the land
of socialism! Simultaneously the Soviet Union
is revealing to humanity a limitless technical
potential and is proposing to go ahead with
universal disarmament. This inspires the
peoples with confidence that the rejection of
force as a method of solving international
issues is becoming a reality. Actually uni-
versal disarmament is no more a utopia than
is peaceful coexistence. And those who still
say that universal disarmament is a utopia
would do well to recall that only a few
months ago some believed that the moon
rocket was utopian too. Space flights are no
longer a utopia, they are a reality. And dis-
armament, too, has every chance of becoming
a reality, and for the very same reasons.
Socialism’s leap in technological progress is
such that its peaceful victory in the struggle
for human happiness is all the more assured.
This is a prospect about which we can dream,
because, as Lenin put it, these dreams are
dreams of the future, when man’s energy will
be freely and fully released. And there is

6

every reason to believe that they will come
true.
: * * *

It would be wrong, of course, to imagine
that the process that is bound to lead to uni-
versal disarmament will develop of its own
volition, and that all man has to do is to
sit back and wait for the day of universal
joy. History is made by man, by the masses.
The favorable conditions for the turn which
we now observe in international relations
are the result of the struggle waged by the
peace-loving forces of the world, the out-
come of the persistent efforts of the people
of the Soviet Union and the other socialist
countries. This is precisely what lies behind
the ever-accelerating changes.

In order to isolate the handful of monopol-
ists who grow rich on war orders, the efforts
of all peace supporters should be pooled.
This pooling is needed to stay the hand of
those for whom the idea of universal dis-
armament is anathema, and who are blind to
everything but the nuclear arms drive. Typ-
ical of these forces are the militarist elements
in the United States and Western Germany,
and the de Gaulle government which is now
preparing for nuclear weapon tests in the
Sahara, without the slightest regard as to
the effect this will have on the health of the
peoples of Africa and Southern Europe.

No matter what form imperialism’s policy
of exploitation and oppression may take at
one time or another, its nature remains un-
changed and its tendency towards violence is
preserved. Even a superficial glance at the
reaction of some warlike American monopoly
circles, the ruling groups of France, West
Germany and Italy to the latest Soviet pro-
posal shows that there are those who have
no intention of foregoing the advantages
accruing from militarization, all the more so
because these advantages bear a dual char-
acter. On the one hand, militarization and
the arms drive secure a maximum rate of
profit for the handful of monopolies who
get war contracts from the imperialist
governments, and also (as was the case with
the United States during the Korean war)
exert a certain influence on the cyclical
crises. On the other hand, the militarization
of the state machine and the maintenance of
huge armies are an instrument in the hands
of reaction for political coercion of the mas-
ses, a weapon against the democratic move-
ment of the peoples. Is it not clear that
NATO, in addition to being an aggressive
block against the socialist countries, is also
— with increasing cynicism — a police force

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

against the peoples of Western Europe. It
was this the United States News & Word
Report had in mind when it emphasized that
it was expedient in any circumstances “to
maintain a force of adequate size to police
the world.”

In this respect the lesson in democracy
which the government of the USSR gave the
“free world” is not the least significant as-
pect of the Soviet disarmament proposal:
indeed, now that the governments of the so-
cialist countries are ready to go ahead with
complete disarmament, it completely demo-
lishes the slander that in these countries the
peoples are “enslaved.” This is the best
proof of the boundless confidence and sup-
port they enjoy among their peoples. On the
other hand, if the leaders of the capitalist
world fear disarmament, they do so pre-
cisely because they fear their own people.

The masses are becoming convinced that
in reality the “free world” is a world of
violence. The spokesmen of the big bour-
geoisie, dreading the inevitable squaring of
accounts, are stepping up their propaganda
against socialism in the hope of befuddling
the people.

The fight against the advocates of the
“positions of strength” policy, against all
who stand for the medieval method of solving
ideological differences by fire and sword, is
a necessity. The conditions for this struggle
are now more favorable than ever before.
The process that has been getting underway
over the past few years — the polarization
of the immense forces that stand for peace
on the one hand and the bellicose monopolies
on the other — is bound to gain momentum.

And likewise, under the pressure of the
masses, the tendency in some _ bourgeois
quarters to revise the hitherto dominant con-
cept of force as a means of resolving out-
standing international issues, is likely to be-
come more pronounced.

The working class — the life-giving source
of the growing peace forces — is now in a
better position to bring larger masses into
the peace struggle, including sections of the
non-monopoly bourgeoisie. The consolidation
of working-class unity — the basis of its
militancy—is also facilitated by the develon-
ment of this process, which is leading to the
isolation of the monopoly groups that call
for the cold war and sometimes for a hot one.

Indicative of the ideas now engaging the
minds of the rank-and-file Socialists are the
statements made recently by a number of
Social-Democratic leaders in Europe and Asia.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 7

Whereas Paul Spaak bluntly rejected the
idea of a ban on atomic weapons, while in-
sisting on increasing NATO’s atomic might,
the British Labor Party leader,
Gaitskell, welcomed the perspective opened
up by the Soviet proposals. Erich Ollenhauer.
Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of
Germany, also welcomed them, and it is to
be hoped that his words will be followed up
with deeds. The Socialist Party of Japan
maintains that “world peace will prevail in
the near future provided the other powers,
the United States in the first place, agree
with this proposal.”

There is, therefore, a sound basis for con-
solidating united action by all working people,
the Socialists and Communists in _parti-
cular. The time is ripe for all trends in the
working-class movement to “brush aside all
the tricksters of anti-communism,” as was
said at the Twenty-First Congress of the
CPSU, and to work out a joint program
which would redouble the forces of the
working class in its struggle for peace. Even
today this joint struggle for immediate aims,
the realization of which would facilitate uni-
versal disarmament, is both possible and
necessary.

Neither the people nor the countries of the
socialist camp are insisting on all or nothing:
universal disarmament, or continuation of the
cold war. Their desire is that the Western
powers agree to take at least some steps
towards terminating the cold war. With this
end in view they are intensifying their ef-

Hugh

forts for the immediate implementation of
overdue measures for partial disarmament.
The immediate discontinuation and ending of
all nuclear weapon tests, the establishment
of an atom-free zone in Europe, the with-
drawal of all foreign troops and the dis-
mantling of all bases on the territory of other
countries, a non-aggression pact between
the NATO and the Warsaw Treaty countries
—these are some of the measures that could
be taken in the near future, thus creating con-
ditions for the complete elimination of the
cold war.

It is the struggle and cohesion of the mas-
ses, a struggle for which the Soviet dis-
armament proposals open up the possibility
of success, that will decide whether the
Western powers will come to realize the
need for negotiations with the socialist
countries, for meetings at different levels to
discuss the implementation of these measures.

Down through the centuries war has seemed
to people to be a Sisyphean stone which, from
time to time, inevitably rolled back on to
their heads and before which they were help-
less. But the working class is not helpless.
Today, rallying the people still more closely,
it is acquiring the strength which will enable
it to eliminate once and for all this mortal
danger and cast it into the limbo of the past.
By storming the heavens it is again demon-
strating its ability to take into its hands the
destiny of mankind and to lead it into the
world of prosperity, boundless progress and
security.

Peaceful Coexistence and the
Struggle of Two Ideologies

L. Ilyichov

HE Khrushchov article in Foreign Affairs
— a profound development of Lenin’s
idea of peaceful coexistence of states with
differing social systems — was read with in-
terest throughout the world. In London and
Paris, Delhi and Tokyo, it was recognized as
a contribution to the struggle of the peoples
for a new way of social development, a way
which would avert war and usher in the era
of lasting peace.
Khrushchov’s goodwill visit to the United
States has demonstrated once again the vital-

ity of the idea of peaceful coexistence and its
significance in relaxing international tension.
No matter which trend gains the upper hand
in international relations in the future it
is clear that Khrushchov’s visit to the United
States will go down in history as an act of
statesmanship and farsightedness that is
bound to exert a great influence on the ques-
tions of war and peace.

The peoples of the whole world have been
given a striking manifestation of the Soviet
Union’s consistency in working to ease ten-

8

sions and have gained a better idea of its
peaceful foreign policy which opens up real
opportunities for replacing the ‘cold war‘
with a durable peace. The world heard the
truth about communism, the new society
now being built by the selfless efforts of the
Soviet people. The peace-loving forces in all
countries got a view of the grand prospects
for human development. Khrushchov’s visit
has raised the international prestige of the
Soviet Union and the other socialist coun-
tries, has greatly helped the fraternal Com-
munist and Workers’ parties and inspired the
progressive forces in their struggle for
genuine freedom and democracy, for the
victory of socialism.

Whereas a bare ten years ago the ideolog-
ical opponents of socialism comforted them-
selves with the thought that communism
would be “rolled back,” today very few
people, even among the hot-heads in the ca-
pitalist world, count on this.

History marches onward, its laws are ir-
reversible and only a hopeless doctrinaire
could ignore all that has taken place in the
past forty years and think in terms of “rol-
ling back” communism. What, then, is the
alternative? What is to be done? Act the
gambler and drop the H-bomb like dice and
trust to luck? That would be rather risky:
in the ICBM age such a gamble could bring
catastrophe upon the capitalist world. Or,
accept the Soviet Union’s proposal for peace-
ful coexistence, which it has championed
ever since November 7, 1917? This prospect,
too, is a little frightening, because the history
of the postwar shows that that part of the
world still under the iron heel of capitalism
has been shrinking like Balzac’s Piece of Skin.

And so we have an outpouring of theoret-
ical theses, public speeches, philosophical
writings and journalistic studies aimed at
finding a way out: if economic and social
progress cannot be “rolled back,” it should
at least be contained, retarded or directed
along a course which would help preserve
capitalism. Some of the apologists of the
moribund capitalist system want to give it
a.new name. Nonsense, they say, this is not
the capitalism that Marx described. We now
have “people’s capitalism,” “humane capital-
ism” which, in essence, is the same as social-
ism, if not better... .

Among the top people in the capitalist
countries it has become fashionable to parade
their acquaintance with the writings of Marx
and Lenin. The new Marxist “scholars” (the
late Mr. Dulles claimed to be one of them)

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

try to prove that the working class, in fight-
ing capitalism, in struggling for power, is
simply wasting its time. The revisionists, all
too anxiously, give all the help they can to
these gentlemen. They say that times have
changed, that the old production relations
are being infused with a “socialist” content.
All that is needed is patience; class struggle
should be abandoned.

Then there are those who hasten to
distort the principle of peaceful coexistence.
They want it extended also to the ideological
sphere, demanding, if not peaceful coexist-
ence of the ideas of the exploiting and ex-
ploited classes, then at least that the Com-
munists should recognize the “right” of the
two ideologies “to equality.” But their idea
of equal opportunity for the two ideologies
is a rather queer one: they want equality
only on the territory of the socialist countries.
As to the capitalist world, where the press,
radio, television, cinema and book trade are
controlled by the imperialists, not a word is
said about equal rights. Spokesmen of the
West, as the facts show, fear cultural ex-
changes with the socialist countries on an
equal basis. Not long ago one of these,
speaking with admirable candor, declared
that the object of cultural exchange was to
transfer the war of ideas to enemy territory.

As a matter of fact the same intention is
behind the blatant demands for “free ex-
change of information and ideas.” The pur-
pose here is not to grant access, so far as
the capitalist countries are concerned, to the
noble ideas of communism but freely to
spread in the socialist world all kinds of
inventions, to market their cultural rubbish
and to fan hatred among peoples.

In vain, however, are their hopes of divert-
ing the minds of the peoples from the key
issue — peaceful coexistence — or distort-
ing its essence. Khrushchov’s article clearly
elucidates the matter. “Let us try out in
practice,” he writes, “whose system is better,
let us compete without war. This is much
better than competing in who will produce
more arms and who will crush whom. We
stand and always will stand for the kind of
competition that will help to raise the well-
being of the people to a higher level.”

This language, plain and understandable,
was welcomed not only by working people,
but also by many realistic capitalist leaders.
Some leading U.S. newspapers reacted to
Khrushchov’s article with open hostility.
When Vice-President Nixon interpreted co-
existence as a world divided into two host-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 9

ile camps separated by a wall of hatred and
fear, these papers told their readers that this
was a new argument. The U.S. press ignored
the fact that in this case different concepts
— questions of interstate relations and class
struggle — had been deliberately confused.
Moreover, the opponents of peaceful co-
existence claim to see a contradiction be-
tween the idea of coexistence and the re-
fusal of the Communists to lower the flag
of the ideological struggle.

Khrushchov’s article repiies to these spec-
ulations. It says unequivocally that capital-
ist spokesmen reason thus: “the Soviet
leaders argue that they are for peaceful co-
existence. At the same time they declare
that they are fighting for communism and
they even say that communism will be vic-
torious in all countries. How can there be
peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union
if it fights for communism?

“People who treat the question in this way
confuse matters, willfully or not, by failing
to distinguish between problems of ideological
struggle and the question of relations be-
tween states. Those indulging in this sort of
confusion are most probably guided by a
desire to cast aspersions upon the Commun-
ists of the Soviet Union and to represent
them as the advocates of aggressive actions.
This, however, is very unwise...

“We communists believe that the idea of
communism will ultimately be victorious
throughout the world, just as it has been
victorious in our country, in China and in
many other countries. Many readers of
Foreign Affairs will probably disagree with
us. Perhaps they think that the idea of
capitalism will ultimately triumph. It is their
right to think so. We may argue, we may
disagree with one another. The main thing
is to keep to the positions of ideological
struggle, without resorting to arms in order
to prove that one is right.”

This, as the Communists see it. is how mat-
ters should stand in respect to the relations
between states with differing social systems
if the idea of peaceful coexistence is to tri-
umph. The socialist countries believe that it is
possible to exist in the manner described by
Lenin as early as 1920: “Let the American
capitalists leave us alone. We will not touch
them.”

The Khrushchov visit was a milestone in
the Soviet Union’s struggle for peaceful co-
existence and for ending the “cold war.”

The head of the Soviet Government went
to the United States with an open heart.
The USSR sincerely wants friendly relations

with the United States. Clearly such relations
between the two most powerful states in
the world would have a beneficial effect on

. the international situation as a whole and

would help to settle many burning issues.
The more far-sighted capitalist spokesmen
now realize that for them there is no altern-
ative other than peaceful coexistence.

However, those who say that peaceful co-
existence rules out any battle of ideas know
little of the laws of social development.
Peaceful coexistence between ideologies,
about which some muddlers speak, is as un-
thinkable as reconciliation between light and
darkness.

II

The opponents of socialism have long tried
to prove that by its very nature Marxist-
Leninist ideology and peaceful coexistence
are mutually exclusive. In reality any un-
biased person with only a slight acquaintance
with Marxism-Leninism will readily grant
that peaceful coexistence stems logically
from this teaching of which it is an insepar-
able part.

Countries with differing social and econ-
omic systems have existed before. Slavery
and feudalism, feudalism and capitalism, ex-
isted side by side for a long time waging
at times bitter economic, political and ideolog-
ical struggle, often in the shape of armed
conflicts. However, because these societies
were founded on private property and the
exploitation of man by man, the ruling
classes, when confronted with a common
danger, always called off their feuds and made
peace not only in the political but also in
the ideological sphere.

No matter what the differences were be-
tween the capitalists and the feudal lords,
no matter how deep their antagonisms, they
always united when it was necessary to
defend exploiting society as such and reached
a compromise at the expense of the working
people.

We recall what Marx and Engels wrote in
the Communist Manifesto in 1848. A “holy
alliance” of Pope and Tsar, Metternich and
Guizot, French Radicals and German police-
spies was formed to combat the specter of
communism. In spite of the war between
France and Prussia, the French bourgeoisie
joined hands with the Prussian Junkers to
crush the Paris Commune, because the op-
pressors find it far more important to defend
their class privileges than the interests of
the nation or ideological principles.

10

Our era, the era of the transition from
capitalism to socialism, also sees countries
with differing social-econcmic systems ex-
isting side by side. This “also,” however, can
be used only very conditionally. The present
period has no analogy in history. Socialism
and capitalism are not simply different, but
diametrically opposed social formations.

The class interests of the bourgeoisie and
proletarians are irreconcilable: if it is vital
for the bourgeoisie to maintain the system of
exploitation, the principal object of the work-
ing class is to build the new, communist
society.

The present period is characterized by the
polarization of class forces, when the two
opposite poles of contemporary society stand
out very clearly: the proletariat and its al-
lies on the one hand, and the monopoly
bourgeoisie and its stooges, on the other.

The existence of the two opposed social
systems — socialism and capitalism, — and
the sharpening of class contradictions com-
plicate the political situation to an un-
precedented degree. But precisely because of
the powerful socialist world system, new
and favorable opportunities are open to
mankind.

Whereas under capitalism the contradic-
tions are such that it cannot develop with-
out crises and war, unless part of the pro-
ducts is destroyed from time to time, under
socialism peace is the normal, the best con-
dition for its development. The rise of the
socialist world system makes feasible for
the first time in history the realization of
the cherished aspiration of the vast majority
of mankind: repudiation of war as a means
of solving international issues.

The experience of the last few decades
has proved that the stronger the socialist
world system, the more stable peace is.

Today the socialist system exerts a
tremendous influence on world development.
Jointly with the peace-loving non-socialist
countries, it is capable of extinguishing at
the very outset hotbeds of war wherever
they may appear. And in the near future,
with the fulfilment of the Soviet Seven-
Year Plan and the economic plans of the
other socialist countries, there will be a real
possibility of eliminating war as a means of
solving international issues.

However, war can be eliminated only

through struggle, above all, through the ef-
forts of the socialist peoples in expanding
their own productive forces to a degree
which would ensure the superiority of social-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

ism over capitalism in the decisive sphere of
human activity, namely, that of material pro-
duction. The economic strength of the social-
ist countries will enable the peace-loving
peoples to impose peaceful coexistence on the
aggressive imperialist forces, compelling them
to give up any attempt at unleashing a new
world war.

We can with full confidence declare that
the process of strengthening the peace-loving
forces throughout the world will proceed
more intensively than hitherto. The working
people and the peace supporters in all
countries are rallying against the monopoly
bourgeoisie to defend the vital interests of
the overwhelming majority of the people and
to uphold peace. The international situation
is changing in favor of peace and progress.

In this age of rocketry and nuclear energy
peace is the most vital concern of mankind.
Our generation, which has subordinated the
mighty forces of nature, can use these forces
for the benefit of mankind. But to do so it
must prevent the aggressors from unleash-
ing war. Since there is a danger that the
more aggressive imperialists may resort to
nuclear war, the most important thing is the
common concern to preserve peace and not
the differences on minor issues that exist
between the various countries. It is on this
basis that the peace movement has emerged
and is growing. This movement has no ob-
jective other than preventing a new world
war.

The natural leader of the people in the
struggle against the threat of war is the most
advanced and best organized class — the
working class headed by the Communist
parties. The Communist parties have no aim
other than the interests of the people. And
the people want peace.

Itt

The question may be asked: does not the
rallying of the peace-loving forces to com-
bat aggression, for peaceful coexistence of
countries with differing social systems,
signify abandoning the class struggle? The
answer is that it doesn’t.

In essence, coexistence signifies continu-
ation of this struggle, but by peaceful means,
a form of class struggle, a form born out
of the transition from capitalism to socialism.
Coexistence implies that, in the sphere of
interstate relations, war as a means of
struggle assumes the form of competition
between the two systems for winning the
support of the masses. Victory will go to

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 1l

the social system which will provide the
people with more benefits — genuine political

freedom and equality, and satisfaction of ©

their material and spiritual needs. Commun-
ism is such a system. The reactionary
bourgeoisie, lacking confidence in a favor-
able outcome of peaceful competition, is do-
ing everything to prevent the implementation
of the principles of peaceful coexistence.

Engels pointed out that class struggle was
conducted in a threefold way — theoretical,
political and the practical-economic. He
stressed the importance of the, so to say,
concentric attack wherein lay the strength
and invincibility of the movement.* In his
What Is To Be Done?, written in 1902,
Lenin emphasized the point that “Engels re-
cognizes not two forms of the great struggle
of Social Democracy (political and econom-
ic) . . ., but three, adding to the first two
the theoretical struggle.”** Lenin regarded
this point as being instructive from the stand-
point of the problems and controversies of
the day.

Engel’s words retain their validity, be-
cause the existence of the socialist world
system has made the class struggle more
complicated than it was during the lifetime
of Marx and Engels.

The Great October Socialist Revolution
gave the working people an instrument which
they never had before, namely, the State.
The consolidation of the dictatorship of the
proletariat put an end to the bourgeois
monopoly of state power. From then on class
struggle was extended also to the sphere of
interstate relations.

From its very first day of existence the
Soviet State proclaimed peace, non-inter-
ference in the internal affairs of other coun-
tries, recognition of the right of all peoples
to self-determination and the establishment
of the system of their choice as the basic
principles of its foreign policy. And from that
very first day, too, the Soviet State en-
countered the frenzied opposition of the im-
perialist forces. Non-recognition, diplomatic
moves aimed at isolating it, the notorious
“cordon sanitaire,” sabotage, aggressive al-
liances, and, lastly, repeated military attacks
(of which the most dangerous was the per-
fidious Hitler invasion) — make up the in-
complete list of the methods to which the
bourgeoisie resorted in its political struggle

*Vide: Marx, Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 652.

Frederick Engels, Prefatory Note to The Peasant War in
Germany.
*V. I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, pp. 36-37.

against the first dictatorship of the prole-
tariat.

Economic blockade, efforts to strangle the
Soviet Republic with “the bony hand of
hunger,” economic sabotage, forcing the
Soviet Union to spend heavily on defense with
a view to making her divert resources from
socialist construction — these are some of
the forms of economic struggle used by the
capitalists against the workers’ state.

The theoretical field, primarily the sphere
of ideology, abounds in propaganda cam-
paigns of the “captive nations’ week” type
recently staged in the USA, “criticism” of
Marxism and “refuting” it, ‘“‘people’s capital-
ism” theories, ‘enlightened capitalism,” anti-
Soviet broadcasts and infiltration of anti-
Soviet and anti-communist literature into the
territory of the socialist countries. All these
efforts, of course, are bound to fail in the
long run. However, it would be wrong to
close one’s eyes to the fact that the imperial-
ists, by resorting to cheap demagogy, have
succeeded from to time in befuddling un-
stable elements even among the working
people.

These forms of class struggle were en-
countered in the relations between the land
of socialism and the capitalist countries and,
with the evolution of socialism into a world
system, manifest themselves in the relations
between the socialist camp and the camp
of imperialism.

Hence, in order not to lose perspective and
to act in consonance with the laws of social
development it is vital not to lose sight of
the class character of the processes taking
place on the world arena.

It is a feature of the latter-day revision-
ists to ignore the class character of these
processes. They juggle with ‘“non-class” ca-
tegories, “blocs in general,” “groupings in
general” and “bases in general.” They try
to brush aside the fact that behind interna-
tional developments there are always real
interests, that the class struggle is being
waged also on the world arena, although it
differs both in form and content from the
class struggle in the individual countries.

There is no reason why, in interstate rela-
tions, class struggle should assume the form
of armed clashes. The Communists maintain
that in the relations between countries with
differing social systems the sole method
should be peaceful negotiation.

Can there be a more sincere expression of
the peaceful strivings of the Soviet Union

12

than the plan .for comprehensive and com-
plete disarmament submitted by N. S.
Khrushchov to the U. N. General Assembly?
No bourgeois government has ever suggested
anything like this. A world without arm-
aments, wrote the Indian paper Amrita Bazar
Patrica, has been the cherished dream of
unsophisticated idealists. Now, however, for
the first time in history, a practical statesman
— the spokesman for one of the greatest
world powers — has submitted such a pro-
posal not merely for the sake of the theoret-
ical principle of repudiating war as an in-
strument of national policy but for the sake
of actually abolishing armaments and the
bodies without which war cannot be cond-
ucted. Khrushchov, said this paper, has struck
at the roots of the poisonous tree to prevent
it from growing at all.

The Soviet Declaration on disarmament
has confronted the critics of communism with
a thankless task, namely, once again and
for the nth time, to cast aspersions on the
disinterested and humane character of the
statement. Once again, all over the world,
they are harping on the old tune about the
Soviet proposals being mere propaganda or a
utopia, or just another snare set by Com-
munists to catch the capitalists, The New
York Times, for instance, said in plain
language that the Soviet plan for total dis-
armament was spearheaded against the in-
ternal security of the bourgeois states which
may be overrun by spontaneously rising
masses of workers and peasants. The lords
of the “free world” fear that their people may
take advantage of the abolition of armies
and stockpiles of weapons to put an end to
the capitalist system.

The ideas of communism are the most
advanced ideas of our times. The achieve-
ments of socialism in the peaceful competition
are exerting, and will continue to exert, a
beneficial influence on the emancipation
movement in the capitalist countries and on
the struggle of the working people against
the capitalist class. In this struggle the sym-
pathies of the socialist countries are un-
reservedly with the toilers, the oppressed
and the disinherited. Nevertheless, Marxists
firmly maintain that social transformation,
the change-over from one system to another,
is purely the internal affair of the people of
the particular country. Everything depends
on the conditions prevailing in the country,
on the correlation of class forces there. Any
attempts to “spur” on the struggle of the
working class from outside — either by
armed intervention, or by any other means

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

— can only harm the cause of the working
class and socialism. This was repeatedly
pointed out by Lenin as, for instance, when
he rebuffed the “Left Communists“ who
maintained that “fomenting” international
revolution was the right thing to do. “A
‘theory’ of this kind,” wrote Lenin “would
run counter to Marxism, which has always
denied ‘fomenting’ revolutions. They develop
in accordance with the sharpening of the
class contradictions which engender revol-
utions.”

The hoary tale about the “export” of re-
volution, propagated by bourgeois ideolocists,
is a downright lie. They claim that because
the Communists are interested in the spread
of socialism throughout the world and openly
proclaim the inevitability of the downfall of
capitalism on a world scale, they are there-
fore interested in war and internal subver-
sion. Hence, they conclude, peaceful coex-
istence with countries where Communists are
in power is impossible.

This “logic” has nothing in common with
the truth. The strength of Marxism-Lenin-
ism derives from a knowledge of the laws
of the development of society; in disclosing
these laws, this theory teaches that one
must act in accordance with these laws, not
contrary to them. We see the working out
of these laws in the replacing of one social
formation by another, more progressive one.
Such is the law of social development; it
is born out of life itself and not invented
by .armchair philosophers.

On the whole, human scciety develops
on an ascending plane. Socialism alone en-
sures for all members of society a life
worthy of man; it alone guarantees a just
distribution of material and spiritual values,
genuinely democratic rights and freedoms for
all and makes people the masters of their
destiny. Socialism alone is capable of put-
ting an end to wars once and for all.

Because of the law of the uneven develop-
ment of capitalism, the conditions for new,
socialist relations of production ripen in one
country before they do in another. No mat-
ter how eager the Communists may be to
spread socialism, it cannot be established
in any country until the conditions there are
ripe. It should be pointed out that the ques-
tion whether such conditions are present
or not is decided by the course of the strug-
gle in the particular country.

Such is the objective law of history which
operates irrespective of anyone’s desire, of
his good or bad will. That is why ‘“foment-

— ©

oe. ae

5S or illl(;};Ww—m mew FOU CUS

-_

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 13

ing” revolution would be nothing but a
political gamble, anarchism, and the reverse
of Marxism-Leninism.

And conversely, no forces can-~-for any
considerable length of time retard the es-
tablishment of a new, more advanced social
system provided the material and moral con-
ditions for the change are ripe in the given
country, provided the masses are conscious
of the need for social change and actively
fight to bring it about. This has been con-
firmed not only by the experience of the
Soviet Union, but also by that of the Chinese
People’s Republic and the other socialist
countries.

Allegations about the “export” of revolu-
tion have been revived in the guise of the
so-called “indirect aggression.” Those indulg-
ing in these semantics try to make it appear
that were it not for the “subversive activity”
of the Soviet Union, the ‘Kremlin,’ the
“hand of Moscow” (their name for the Com-
munist parties), “peace and good will” would
reign in the capitalist world.

What purpose do the bourgeois propagan-
dists pursue when they make allegations
about “indirect aggression?” Their purpose
is to undermine the prestige of the Com-
munists in the eyes of the people. The aim
of these inventions is to get the naive to
believe that the threat to capitalism emanates
not from its own contradictions but from
without; that were it not for the threat
from without capitalism could exist forever,
without crises, without unemployment and
without misery.

Precisely because the transition from capi-
talism to socialism takes place in each coun-
try when the internal conditions are ripe
for such a change (in some cases—sooner,
and in others—later) the coexistence of capi-
talist and socialist states over a definite
period of time is an objective law of history.
In the immediate years after the October
Revolution Lenin pointed out that such a
period was unavoidable, a period “when
socialist and capitalist states would exist
side by side.”

Thus, in upholding the principles of peace-
ful coexistence, the Communists proceed
from Marxism-Leninism, from _ objective
necessity, from the facts of objective reality.
In the world of today there are socialist
countries, just as there are capitalist coun-
tries.

IV
From the standpoint of the opponents of

_ peace, coexistence can be looked at also in

the form of constant conflicts between the
two systems. After the war this view became
widespread in the West. It has been imple-
mented in the “cold war” policy, in the
formula: coexist, but wage the “cold war”
and keep the world in a state of constant
tension.

Peaceful coexistence does not mean merely
living side by side without war now, but
to constantly guard against it breaking out
in the future. The crux of the problem is to
find practical ways to normalize international
relations. Is it possible to find a formula for
coexistence which, while guaranteeing uni-
versal peace, would at the same time be
acceptable both to the socialist and capitalist
states? Of course, it is. Moreover, it has al-
ready been found and applied in the rela-
tions between a number of countries with
differing social systems.

“In its simplest expression,” says Khrush-
chov, peaceful coexistence “signifies the re-
pudation of war as a means of solving con-
troversial issues. However, this does not
cover the entire concept of peaceful co-
existence. Apart from the commitment to
non-aggression, it also presupposes an obli-
gation on the part of all states to desist from
violating each other’s territorial integrity and
sovereignty in any form and under any pre-
text whatsoever. The principle of peaceful
coexistence signifies a renunciation of inter-
ference in the internal affairs of other coun-
tries with the object of altering their system
of government or mode of life or for any
other motives. The doctrine of peaceful co-
existence also presupposes that political and
economic relations between countries are to
be based upon complete equality of the
parties concerned, and on mutual benefit.”

In present conditions these principles
could become a reliable basis for lasting
peace among all the countries.

The -contradictions between the two sys-
tems can neither be eliminated nor ignored.
However, they by no means imply war. Repu-
diation of war as a means of resolving inter-
national issues and differences, their settle-
ment exclusively through negotiations—that
is the political platform for peaceful co-
existence, which meets the interests of all
peoples, of the workers of all countries.

This, in general outline, is the political
aspect of the class struggle in the sphere of
interstate relations today.

14

The strength of the socialist camp inspires
hope in the future: the peace-loving forces
now. have a real possibility for commanding
respect for the principles of peaceful co-
existence on the part of those adventurist
imperialist circles which would like to plunge
mankind into new conflicts. The achievements
of Soviet science and technology, the launch-
ing of the sputniks and cosmic rockets by
the Soviet Union, have shown what enormous
possibilities are possessed by the socialist
camp.

In the sphere of economy the class struggle
assumes the form of economic competition
between socialism and capitalism. The social-
ist countries declare that the competition
can and must be peaceful, that it can and
must be aimed at raising living standards
and not at stockpiling armaments. It is the
economy which is the main sphere of the
peaceful competition between the two co-
existing systems.

Which of the two systems will provide
a higher living standard? Under which sys-
tem is the working day longer, and under
which is it shorter; under which system does
the working man derive more material and
spiritual benefits; which system provides bet-
ter housing and better opportunities for edu-
cation?

Peaceful competition can and must super-
sede the economic conflict which found ex-
pression in the forms engendered by the
“cold war,” such as the ruinous arms drive,
the embargo on trade with the socialist coun-
tries dictated by the United States to the
members of the imperialist blocs.

International trade without restrictions or
barriers is a sound economic basis for peace-
ful coexistence.

Trade restrictions, according to the im-
perialist press, have ‘“boomeranged” against
the economy of the capitalist countries. Not
only press reports but also the successful
steps undertaken by a number of capitalist
governments with a view to abolishing trade
restrictions testify to the impact exercised by
the economy of the socialist countries on
world politics. The Soviet Seven-Year Plan
and the economic plans of the other social-
ist countries open up wide vistas for mutual-
ly profitable international trade.

Speaking about world economic relations,
Lenin pointed out that they constitute a
force greater “than the desire, will or de-
cision of any of the hostile governments or
classes.” They compel the capitalist coun-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

tries to enter into contact with us. This
force will make itself felt more and more
with the growth of the economic strength of
the socialist world system.

The establishment of the material and tech-
nological base of communism by the Soviet
people in accordance with the grand prog-
ram of communist construction announced
by the 2lst Congress of the CPSU will de-
cisively affect the balance of forces on the
world arena. As soon as the socialist sys-
tem achieves superiority over the capitalist
system in material production—the decisive
sphere of human activity—it will have gained
an historic victory which will exert a truly
tremendous influence on the entire develop-
ment of human society.

V

Apart from the struggle in the political
and economic spheres—which, according to
the Communists, should develop in the form
of peaceful coexistence, in the form of peace-
ful competition, there is also the struggle in
the sphere of ideology—a major factor in the
development of society.

In the latter sphere there has never been
nor can there be peaceful coexistence be-
tween socialism and capitalism. The Com-
munists have always fought and will continue
to fight for their ideas, for the revolutionary
ideology of the working class as the most
advanced and progressive ideology of our
times.

Whereas in the sphere of politics it is pos-
sible and necessary within reasonable limits
to take into account the point of view of the
opponent (otherwise negotiations would be
out of the question since the object of the
latter is to find points of contact, and rap-
prochement between the standpoints); and
whereas in the economic sphere concessions
are likewise natural (on a mutual basis, of
course) , concessions which in the final analy-
sis benefit the two parties, it would be utterly
wrong to imagine that in exchange for conces-
sions in political and economic relations the
socialist states would make concessions in
the sphere of ideology, to think that normal-
ization of international relations depends on
reconciling ideologies and abandoning prin-
ciples.

The late Mr. Dulles urged the USSR to
give up “at least a part of the Soviet com-
munist creed.” More recently some Western
circles have repeated this appeal, for, it
appears, there are those in the imperialist

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 15

countries who believe that the socialist coun-
tries may make ideological concessions.

It should be said point blank that these are
vain hopes. Many in the capitalist countries
who have no liking for communism realize
this only too well.

A new line has appeared in imperialist
propaganda: bourgeois ideologists are trying
to benefit from their own defeat. They have
disgraced themselves by writing about the
“terrible conditions of the Soviet people,”
about their “going hungry,” and about the
scientific and technological “backwardness” of
the Soviet Union. But who in the West now-
adays can deny the achievements of socialism
or dispute the leading position of the Soviet
Union in a number of fields of science and
technology.

Today these propagandists have given cur-
rency to another stream of falsehoods. They
try to convince the working people in the
capitalist countries that communism is the
“ideology of the poor,” that now, with the
rising living standards in the Soviet Union
and the other socialist countries, with the
building of a first-rate industry, the Soviet
people have been, so to say, “regenerated.”
Their ideology has “changed,” it is no longer
Marxist.

This, of course, is wishful thinking. But
that does not make imperialist propaganda
less harmful. At the same time it shows that
as far as ideological struggle is concerned
the bourgeoisie has no scruples, it resorts to
lies and inventions.

Hence the need, where principles are con-
cerned, for irreconcilable struggle on the part
of the Communist and Workers’ parties
against any manifestations of bourgeois ideo-
logy in all its forms and variations, the need
to affirm the scientific, most advanced and hu-
mane ideology—Marxism-Leninism. We stand
for broad cultural exchanges. But there can
be no concessions in the ideological sphere.
Any concession to bourgeois ideology means
abandoning Marxist-Leninist ideology, and
there is no such thing as “partial” abandon-
ment. Anyone who gives way in the ideolo-
gical sphere, even to the slightest degree,
consciously or unconsciously betrays the
entire communist ideology and the cause of
socialism.

Can the Communists, for instance, relin-
quish the struggle for the dictatorship of the
proletariat? No, they cannot, because it would
mean perpetuation of capitalism.

Can they give up the fight for transform-
ing private capitalist property into state

. (national) property? No, they cannot, because

to do so would mean perpetuating the exploi-
tation of man by man and the existence of
classes.

Can the Communists give up the principle
of planned development of the national econ-
omy owned by the people? No, they cannot,
because this would be tantamount to forego-
ing one of the basic conditions for a high
rate of growth of production, it would signify
preserving in our economy the evils of capi-
talism from which millions of working people
suffer—crises and mass unemployment.

The mere posing of the question in this way
shows that abandoning any of these principles
of socialism and communism would signify a
return to capitalism.

Bourgeois and reformist ideologists main-
tain that the Communists contradict them-
selves when they speak of peaceful coexis-
tence simultaneously with irreconcilable ideo-
logical struggle. But there is no contradiction
here; on the contrary, ideological concessions
could easily lead to serious political and
military conflicts. Aggressive imperialist cir-
cles would obviously take advantage of these
concessions (were they made) in order to
carry out their “policy of liberation” of the
socialist countries.

Mention has been made of the political and
economic foundations of peaceful coexistence.
Ideological struggle does not make any in-
roads whatever on these foundations. The
soundness of an ideology is demonstrated
not by force of arms, but by peaceful means
—persuasion, explanation and polemic. Ideo-
logical disputes cannot be settled by force.
Although Giordano Bruno was burnt at the
stake, his ideas did not burn with him. Hitler
enslaved a number of European peoples but
he was powerless to force his ideology upon
them.

For more than a hundred years the reac-
tionary forces of the capitalist world have
sought to “destroy” Marxism—the theory of
scientific communism. To this end they have
written mountains of books and articles,
wasted millions of tons of paper and printer’s
ink. To this end they are persecuting Com-
munists and progressives. To this end they
talk about new crusades against the socialist
countries where Marxist-Leninist ideology has
firmly established itself.

But all their efforts are in vain. Marxism-
Leninism cannot be destroyed; it has opened
new horizons before mankind, has captured

16

the minds and hearts of people, and has
enthused millions to work for the common
good. Marxism-Leninism alone has been able
to translate the noble ideas of the best minds
into the revolutionary action of the masses,
into the mighty desire of millions for enlight-
enment and communism.

Ideological struggle is waged by peaceful,
not military means.

The working people of the world can see
for themselves how Marxist-Leninist ideas
are being translated into reality. The one
billion people living in the socialist world
are building a new society where production
is not a means of extracting maximum profit
for capitalists but a means for the maximum
satisfaction of the constantly growing mater-
ial and spiritual needs of all members of
society. This has been brought about under
the leadership of the Communist and Work-
ers’ parties which safeguard the purity of
Marxist-Leninist ideology and which creative-
ly apply this teaching in solving practical
problems.

As time goes on the working people under-
stand more and more that the revisionists
and reformists are betraying their interests,
that they have only one aim (which, as any
Marxist - Leninist knows, is unattainable),
namely, perpetuation of the social relations
based on the exploitation of man by man.

Even now, though with less success than
before, the Social Democrats, with their “new
theories” about the “changed character” of
capitalism, still manage to deceive some sec-
tions of the workers. But with time those who
have been deceived discover that these
“theories” boil down to one thing—to putting
a “socialist” label on capitalism, the same old
capitalism with all its contradictions, unem-
ployment, crises and exploitation.

Reformist practices are to a degree linked
with the ideas of “social conciliation” pro-
moted by bourgeois circles. The preachers
of “moral rearmament,” ‘world government”
and other such panaceas which are designed
to cure the ills of the world have been rather
active of late. That these ideas are unsound
is obvious. One has only to ask: has any
preacher of “social conciliation’ succeeded
in providing an example of such “concilia-
tion” here on earth and not in pipe dreams?

Has the bourgeoisie (on its own or with
the help of the Right-wing Social Democrats)
succeeded in mitigating the class struggle in
any of the capitalist countries irrespective
of whether or not they have Communist

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

parties, whether Communist influence on the
masses is great or small?

On the contrary, experience shows no let
up in class struggle within the capitalist sys-
tem, not even for a moment. The tendency
to establish dictatorial, authoritarian regimes
which has obviously gained ground in many
capitalist countries, the tendency to do away
with the last vestiges of bourgeois-democratic
freedoms, towards establishing in one form
or another an open ruthless dictatorship of
monopoly capital, proves beyond doubt the
acuteness of the class struggle. “We need a
fuehrer, not a bureaucracy!” proclaimed the
Hitler general Staedke. And NATO headquar-
ters printed this slogan in the Revue militaire
genérale. On the other hand, we see that,
notwithstanding all barriers, the masses in
ever-growing numbers are joining the move-
ments fighting against imperialism, colonial-
ism and militarism.

In an effort to undermine the influence
of communist ideology the imperialists and
their agents in the working-class movement
try to portray the Communists as out-and-out
adherents of violence, as “destroyers of world
culture” and of the moral standards estab-
lished by past generations.

These charges have nothing in common
with the truth, with the Marxist - Leninist
theory and practice of the Communist parties.
Marxism cannot be alienated from the devel-
opment of world thought or contrasted to it.
Marxism is the product, the supreme achieve-
ment of this development. While not rejecting
compulsion, Marxism-Leninism does not con-
sider it to be the sole means of struggle
or the sole way to secure the triumph of
socialism and communism.

On the contrary, careful analysis of the
ideological concepts of modern imperialism
reveals that all of them, to a greater or lesser
degree, directly or indirectly, lead, in the final
analysis, to apologetics for violence. In the
sphere of home policy this trend is manifested
in the revival of fascist methods. In foreign
policy it is manifested, for example, in justi-
fying the claims of one or another imperialist
country to world domination, in justifying
the exploitation of the underdeveloped coun-
tries by the imperialists, in justifying colo-
nialism. In the sphere of relations between
the socialist and capitalist systems it is mani-
fested in naked or concealed calls for war
with a view to restoring capitalist rule over
the world.

co

so Rr ODO Bax S NS

| lillie dl
' '

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 17

To give up the ideological struggle (and
some bourgeois leaders are inclined to ask
the Communists to do so as a sort of quid
pro quo for their consent to peaceful coexis-
tence) would signify voluntary surrender of
positions to bourgeois ideology. In ideology
there can be no vacuum.

“. . The only choice is: either the bour-
geois or the socialist ideology,” wrote Lenin
“There is no middle course (for humanity has
not created a “third” ideology, and, moreover,
in a society torn by class antagonisms there
can never be a non-class or above-class
ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist
ideology in any way, to turn away from it
in the slightest degree means to strengthen
bourgeois ideology.”*

Our socialist ideology corresponds to the
objective laws of historical development. It

*V I. Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, p. 53.

does not “urge the conquest of the world”
by the Communists as our enemies claim,
it reflects the incontrovertible fact that the
establishment of communist society through-
out the world is inevitable. Neither the Com-
munists nor any one else can change or annul
the laws of historical development. For more
than a hundred years our adversaries have
never tired of trying to prove the “unsound-
ness” of the communist teaching. Why, if it
is unsound, do the adherents of the old world
dread it so?

“The Marxian doctrine is omnipotent be-
cause it is true,” said Lenin. The capitalist
system will perish because it is doomed by
history. Communists, in keeping with their
ideology, the most humane of all ideologies,
are anxious that doomed capitalism should
cause the least possible injury to mankind,
that it should leave as few ruins as possible
after it has passed on.

Public Opinion Opposes
the “Cold War”

(Letter from the USA)
Herbert Aptheker

REMIER Debre, of France, was quoted on
August 17 as saying: “History moves
quickly and surprising changes can intervene.
Who would have said only six years ago that
visits of chiefs of state would be carefully
organized between Moscow and Washington?”

How shall cone explain this change—and
one need not go back as far as six years to
find it “‘surprising’”—how significant a change
is it, really, and how lasting will it be?

Walter Lippman (New York Herald Tribune
commentator), who possesses perhaps the
most penetrating mind at the service of the
American bourgeoisie, wrote in his column
of August 14:

“There is no great mystery about the sig-
nificance of the Eisenhower-Khrushchov
visits. They are a recognition of the funda-
mental fact of the world today, that the issue
of peace or war will be decided in Moscow
and Washington. Only the USSR and USA
can wage a nuclear war, and they alone,

therefore, can make the ultimate decisions
which mean peace or war.”

There are some obvious truths in this para-
graph; but it leaves unanswered more than
it answers. For the fact that only the Soviet
Union and the United States are capable of
conducting a nuclear war has been true for
several years and everyone has been aware
of this truth for all that time; but it is only
now that the visits are taking place. Further-
more, it is an undisputed fact that the Gov-
ernment of the USSR has been suggesting
and urging such an exchange of visits for
years; yet, again, it is only now that a meet-
ing has taken place. And surely here we
have an aspect of the current visits that Mr.
Lippman’s rather glib paragraph failed to
consider. Here we come to the heart of the
“surprising changes” to which the French
Premier referred; it is in the effort to under-
stand these changes—these trends and move-
ments, these dynamics of international rela-

18

tions — that we will be grapnling with the
deepest significance of the exchange of visits
between the heads of the two greatest powers
on earth.

The fundamental thing is that the foreign
policy of the cold war is binkrupt. The policy
of “containment” and “liberation,” of
“strength” and of “massive retaliation,” of
“brinkmanship,” has not worked, and with
a people as pragmatic as the Americans, that
fact is decisive. The imperialist cold war
policy was founded on the assumption of the
decisively superior strength of capitalism
from both an economic and a military point
of view. That assumption was faulty to begin
with; in ensuing years this error has become
more and more evident, until today, it is
plain to the vast majority of mankind, includ-
ing that portion of it living in imperialist
countries, that the assumption does not accord
with reality.

The developments of the past six years—
to choose the French Premier’s time interval
—have seen one defeat after another for the
cold war policy. Counter-revolution failed;
military intervention failed; economic block-
ade and discrimination failed; “non-recogni-
tion” failed. And, positively. the strength of
the socialist sector of the world grew enorm-
ously in all facets of life—economic, social,
political, military, cultural — highlighted by
the tremendous “leap forward” of the Chinese
people, and culminating in the breathtaking
vistas opened up by the Soviet Seven-Year
Plan.

Meanwhile, the colonial and national-liber-
ation movements also advanced with seven-
league boots, spotlighted in the immediate
past by the Iraqi and Cuban revolutions. The
former triumphed despite Ang'o-American
intervention, and the latter occurred right
at the doorstep of American imperialism. The
Cuban Revolution in particular shook the
American bourgeoisie, for it occurred in a
land but ninety miles from the U.S. mainland,
whose industry, finances, utilities, and mar-
kets are dominated by American imperialism.
whose armed forces were trained and supplied
by the United States, and upon whose terri-
tory were American naval and air bases, and
in support of whose sadistic dictator, Ameri-
can diplomatic strensth was pledged. And
all this in the midst of Latin America—special
locale of the American “spheres of influence.”

Furthermore, despite ruling-class propagan-
da of enormous intensity and almost unbe-
lievable vileness, the great fact is that the

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

American people as a whole do not hate any
other people and they do not wish to make
war upon any other people. On the contrary,
their dearest wish is that peace may prevail
everywhere. For a multitude of reasons, some
of which have been mentioned above, the
fact is that never in the history of the United
States has there been so widespread and so
strong a popular opposition to official foreign
policy as there has been for the past twelve
or sixteen months.

The leaders of both major political parties
know this. That is why they — Stevenscn,
Harriman, Humphreys, Nixon — have been
campaigning in Moscow for the Presidential
nomination for the 1960 elections. That forth-
coming 1960 election is an important catalyst
for the change in foreign policy conduct, but
it is a catalyst, and not the source. The source
lies in the bankruptcy of the cold war policy
as I have stated, a bankruptcy so complete
as to defy camouflage. It is this bankruptcy
which has produced the alteration in popular
opinion — just as, simultaneously, the alter-
ation helped expose and hasten the bank-
ruptcy. At the same time, such an alteration,
palpable as it is, induces swift reaction in
political circles, especially when those circles
stand on the threshold of another election.

+ % F

The revulsion against official foreign policy
manifests itself on all levels and in varying
media. Recent books by Walter Lippman,
James Warburg, William A. Williams, C.
Wright Mills, Lewis Mumford, Norman Thom-
as, Reinhold Niebuhr, C. L. Sulzberger, and
many others, have attacked that policy more
or less directly and vigorously. More and
more often now one finds in thoroughly re-
spectable sources quite devastating assaults
upon the Pentagon-State Department line. As
just one example, a recent issue of The Chris-
tian Century (August 5, 1959, leading weekly
organ of Protestant opinion in the country,
carried an article by Stewart Meacham, insist-
ing that U.S. foreign policy was “leading us
into greater and greater peril.” Continued
Mr. Meacham: “NATO is sick because of arms
and the only remedy we know is more arms.”
And his decisive paragraph reads as follows:
“Surely we are not.called on to plunge ahead
following guides who have lost their way.
They urge us to continue the bomb tests, to
press ahead with the missile program, to
refine our capacity for ‘limited war’ and to
stand firm at Lebanon or Quemoy or Berlin.
But the only credentials they offer are the
evidence that this course leads us into greater

Ce ee Oe eS

vi

Oo ~* ODO r- 1 wt ww

<

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 19

and greater peril. What sort of responsibility
is this?”

Early this past summer, so great was the
outcry of disapproval, that the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee of the U.S. Senate asked
fifty retired State Department officers to
submit in writing their opinions of official
foreign policy. Twenty-five replied, and al!
who did were guaranteed anonymity. The
results have just been published by the Com-
mittee, in an 8l-page pamphlet; they amount
to the sharpest kind of criticism of the State
Department both in terms of the method by
which it conducts its affairs and the line
which it has pursued in the last few years.
The policy of anti-communism is denounced
as one which cannot effectively contribute
to American national interests. One of the
diplomats points out that ‘“‘petty, reactionary
rulers” — he names Chiang Kai-shek — “are
given a determinant role in the formulation
of American policy;’ he laments that the
United States “should thus be cast in the
role of Louis XIV with the most reactionary
of regimes posing as the champion of liberty.”
Another reports that “we are placing too
much reliance on ineffective, weak, ‘paper’
alliances of a military nature,” and _ that,
furthermore, ‘‘a military policy that reaches
for nuclear weapons as its main ingredient,
is a self-defeating policy, in that it guarantees
a dead Europe.” Another states that “even
in the case of NATO... a purely military
alliance is the weakest kind, held together
only by fear and subject to the fluctuations
of emotion.”

Of the greatest importance in connection
with this document are not the details and
the specific criticisms that are made—impor-
tant as these are—but rather the fact that
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee felt
it necessary to conduct this poll and then
felt it proper, just at this time, to publish
its results demonstrating the growing popular
dissatisfaction with official foreign policy and
with the cold war.

One of the former State Department offi-
cers stated, as we have seen, that the system
of alliances built up by the U.S. Government
was defective since it was based upon “paper”
commitments, or because it was fundamental-
ly military in nature and depended largely
upon fear for whatever consistency it might
have. This touched upon, rather obliquely, the
notorious fact that the “allies” of the United
States were increasingly split amongst them-
selves. Anglo-French and Anglo-West German

economic competition is intense and is grow-
ing; the Algerian war bleeds France and
creates acute propaganda and diplomatic
problems for the United States; suspicion
concerning West German rearmament is keen
especially in France and England, and is by
no means absent from American public opin-
ion. Political exigencies in Great Britain
relative to the German question are even
more pressing than in the United States. To
this it should be added that American pene-
tration in Middle Eastern, South Asian and
African markets and “zones of influence”
traditionally British or French, continues.

The splits among these allies reflected
weaknesses in American foreign policy. At
times, the differences between Great Britain
and the United States appeared in forms
close to the ludicrous. Thus, when the first
sessions of the meeting of Foreign Ministers
in Geneva ended in recess, Secretary of State
Herter and Foreign Secretary Lloyd returned
home to report the first results. Mr. Herter
told the American public that the Soviet
delegation “gave no indication of being inter-
ested in genuine negotiations.” But Mr. Lloyd
told the British people that there had been
“a considerable degree of success in negotia-
tion with the Soviet delegation.” Mr. Herter
reported that the Soviet delegation made it
plain that it wished to turn West Berlin into
a “slave state;” Mr. Lloyd reported that the
Soviet statesmen had “declared their willing-
ness for the West Berliners to remain free
to choose their own way of life.”

Similarly, in the transparently cooked-up
Laos provocation, while the American press
has been juggling with the facts, the British
press has gagged on this one. The Manchester
Guardian, for example, in its issue of August
11, 1959, pointedly quoted from the handouts
of the U.S. Embassy on the Laos matter, and
specifically and at length demonstrated that
the handout was a concoction of fantastic
falsehoods. The London Times, also, has re-
ported (August 12, 1959) no evidence of
“communist aggression” and has described,
on the other hand, the reactionary policy of
the American-owned Laotian government as
being responsible for genuine and indigenous
discontent.

B cg e

There is a particular shift in American
public opinion that is quite dramatic and of
the greatest importance in connection with
the Khrushchov-Eisenhower visits. I have
mentioned the fact that ever since the launch-
ing of the first Sputnik there has been a

20

developing process of a “second loo!x” at the
Soviet reality. That Sputnik, in fact, triggered
a revolution in American public opinion re!a-
tive to the USSR that is comparable only
to what occurred here during the first several
months following Hitler’s attack upon tne
Soviet Union in 1941, when the peoples of
the capitalist world had been assured that
Hitler would conquer the USSR in six weeks
and when—it is worth recalling—he did no
such thing.

The present author summarized the moun-
tain of evidence concerning this shift in a
work published at the end of 1958 (Since
Sputnik; How Americans View the Soviet
Union). In the months since the appearance
of that work, the trend described therein has
accelerated. It has reached the point where
the fanatically and professionally anti-Soviet
journal, The New Leader, is moved to note
it. In its issue of August 31, 1959, it published
an article by Richard Pipes, of the Russian
Research Center at Harvard University, en-
titled, “America’s New Image of Russia,” and
sub-titled, ‘“Pro-Soviet enthusiasm reflects
excessive U.S. respect for technological pro-
gress.” Mr. Pipes notes: “We are in the midst
of a wave of pro-Soviet sympathy of an
intensity and grass-roots appeal probably
without parallel in our history.” This observa-
tion is accurate and that most certainly is
important. It is this public opinion—really
an integral part of the basic American desire
to avoid war—which played a magnificent
role in leading Mr. Eisenhower to agree to
meet with Premier Khrushchov.

The President acted as the spokesman of
those circles who, under pressure of public
opinion and of the “hard facts” testifying to
the Soviet progress in all spheres, have be-
come conscious of the need to revise the
foreign policy approach. Theirs was a zig-zag
path, but it led eventually to new prospects
in the relations with the USSR. At first the
U.S. ruling class — having been forced to
concede to the exchange of visits — tried to
keep that concession on the tactical level.
Their line is expressed in these words of
President Eisenhower, uttered on September
11, 1959, in connection with his “explanation”
for having invited the Soviet leader: “Firm-
ness in support of fundamentals, with flexi-
bility in tactics and methods, is the key to
any hope of progress in negotiation.” The
point is that the overall cordial welcome
accorded Khrushchov, his tour, his talks

and, lastly, his meeting with the President.
have ushered in a climate of optimism. It is

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

also true that there are many evidences of
a deliberate effort to throw every possible
obstacle in the path of ending the cold war.
And this is understandable.

The commitment of the U.S. imperialist
economy to war-making is very great. Hence,
the announcement of the exchange of visits
created what is called here a “peace scare”
and the immediate result was the tumbling
of prices on the Wall Street Exchange to the
lowest point in the past four years. The July,
1959, issue of Kiplinger’s Newsletter — the
leading “information sheet,” prepared espe-
cially for the guidance of big-business men
—remarked that: “Defense has gotten so big
and so ingrained in the economy that it is
becoming pretty much a law unto itself.”
Meanwhile pressure from public opinion and
smaller businessmen has produced the revela-
tion that 85 per cent of the billions the
Pentagon is spending this year for arms is
being spent through what are called “negoti-
ated contracts” — i.e., contracts entered into
by the government without any competitive
bidding. This results, it has been shown, in
the Government paying five or six times as
much for a particular item as it would have
to if competitive bidding existed; but the
more expensive process benefits the monopo-
lies, for it is with them and them alone that
the government signs “negotiated contracts.”
Upon Congressional questioning, even the
Pentagon admitted that were competitive
bidding used, the government would save
about seven billion dollars a year!

It is considerations such as these—plus the
political and diplomatic considerations touch-
ed on earlier—which account for the pro-
longed failure to invite Premier Khrushchov.
In this light, the recent shift in U.S. public
opinion and in top circles acquires still greater
significance. The really remarkable thing was
that, despite all the efforts of the ultra-reac-
tionary tub-thumpers, particularly during the
first days of the visit, the crowds turned out
in the streets to give a warm welcome to
the envoy of the Soviet people who with
great sincerity expressed his sympathies for
the ordinary people of America.

Hostile and bitter statements have been
forthcoming from individual politicians, while
Nixon has reverted to his more normal self
of petty and sour sniping. Happily, there
have been some exceptions among distin-
guished public figures. Thus, over 50 promi-
nent Americans, including two trade-union
Officials, Dr. Martin Luther King, courageous
leader of the Southern Negroes’ struggles,

»??

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 21

three United States Senators, several univer-
sity presidents, some outstanding scientists,
and Mrs. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. signed
a statement hailing the Premier’s visit and
expressing the hope that it would lead to an
era of peaceful coexistence.

The general nature of the response in the
United States emphasizes the fact that among
the U.S. ruling class there are still powerful
components hostile to the policy of peaceful
coexistence. They want to sabotage the re-
sults of the exchange in order to be able
to point to their own devised failure as a
justification for the continuance of the cold
war.

Norman Cousins, the editor of The Satur-
day Review, — whose general line is favor-
able to ending the cold war, and who recent!v
returned from an extended visit to the USSR
—declared in the issue dated August 29, 1959,
that he had discovered while in the Soviet
Union that a profound change had been made
in Marxist theory. This change, according to
Mr. Cousins, lay in the fact that Communists
had dripped the idea that war preparation
and war-making were inherent in the charac-
ter of modern capitalism. It is possible that
Mr. Cousins actually got that impression; but,
of course, Communists hold that the reat
possibility of an era of world perce exists
today not because monopoly canitalism has
changed its warlike character hnt hecause
the relationship of forces in the world hes
altered decisively in favor of the policy of
peace.

World war can be prevented todav because
the forces seeking its prevention have
strength superior to those forces seeking its
outbreak. The peace forces are winning all
along the line; they have reduced to bank-
ruptcy the policy of enmity and hatred fo-
mented by the ultra-reactionary elements of
monopoly capital. But the above analysis that
war can be prevented requires and assumes
intense, continuous and fierce struggle for
peace; without such struggle, the indescvib-
able catastrophe of modern war may ensulf
mankind.

The beginning of the exchange of visits
between the heads of government of the
United States and the Soviet Union reflects
both sides of this central truth of our epoch.
The visits were agreed to as a result of the
great strength of the peace forces and as a
result of the persistent struggle of those
forces led by the Soviet Union.

That the peace forces succeeded in achiev-
ing this exchange of visits must encourage
and inspire them in terms of the possibilities
of really liquidating the cold war and begin-
ning a prolonged era of genuine peaceful
coexistence.

* * *

These notes were written in the midst of
Premier Khrushchov’s visit and it was too
early, therefore, to attempt an overall esti-
mate of its impact upon American public
opinion. This, however, may already be
stated: Premier Khrushchov, with his direct-
ness and his sincerity and his quickness, has
conveyed the reality of his Government’s
desire for peace.

He has hammered away at the idea that
he has come to find areas of agreement and
not themes of discord, and his persistence
in this makes sense to the average American,
who passionately wishes genuine peace.

Premier Khrushchov has been heard and
seen by tens of millions of Americans, and
he has conveyed an image altogether different
from the stereotypes concerning the “Reds”
and the “Soviet Communists” with which the
American people have been swamped for
many years. All this has had the most whole-
some possible effect for peaceful and progres-
sive opinion in the United States.

It happens that the present writer witness-
ed the historic moment when Premier Khrush-
chov addressed the General Assembly cf the
United Nations and made his imnassioned
plea for good-will and peace in the world.
When Premier Khrushchoy put forth the
proposal cf the Soviet Government for com-
plete and general disarmament, to be con-
cluded within four years, one had come face
to face with a moment of historic importance.

The tendency of some influential figures
and the dominant press is to treat this pro-'
posal as chimerical or demagogic, but its
grandeur is so manifest and the seriousness
with which it was proposed is so clear that
ruling circles fear this approach on their part
will not do. The result is a paragraph like
this in an editorial in the liberal Democratic
Party newspaper, the New York Post: “The
Russian challenge cannot be dismissed merely
by ridicule. Until the West comes up with
a disarmament plan that is sabotage-proof
at home as well as abroad, the headlines
Khrushchov made will haunt us in many
places.”

The Khrushchov proposal wiil indeed’

“haunt in many places.” This is not the first
time in human history that the palaces and

22

the mansions have been “haunted;” but they
are not haunted by mere specters these days.
On the contrary, they are haunted by a
mighty and increasingly irresistible force for
peace representing the vast majority of the
ordinary people of the world.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

The ice of the cold war has been broken,
the thaw has set in. The peoples, neverthe-
less, will not stand by merely as passive
observers, they want the warming up to con-
tinue and they will act so that the warming
process goes ahead speedily and irresistibly.

A Nation Rejuvenated by the
October Revolution

T. Uljabayev

Soviet Tajikistan, “the land of the mountains,” lies in the south-east of
Central Asia, on the frontier between the USSR, China and Afghanistan.

Fertile lowlands stretch through the south-west, along the River Amu Darya

which forms the Soviet-Afghan frontier. Here, in the valleys of the Vakhsh and
other right bank tributaries of the Amu Darya—valleys wide in the south and
narrow in the north—lies the granary of Tajikistan. The warm climate is favor-
able for raising not only wheat, barley and other cereals, but also cotton, rice,
grapes and, in some parts, subtropical crops.

Tajikistan—one of the fifteen Union Republics—is small in territory and
population (some two million). Before the revolution it was a typically backward,
underdeveloped region. This year marks the 35th anniversary of Tajikistan as an
Autonomous Republic and 30th anniversary as a Union Republic. Below, T. Ulja-
bayev, First Secretary of the C. C. of the Communist Party of Tajikistan, de-
scribes the achievements of his Republic which are typical of all the national
Republics of the USSR—equal members of the multi-national family of Soviet

peoples who have entered the period of all-round building of communism.

=

KiRGHy2 SSp

KAZAKH SSR

o.. S. TashwewT
ae
» e .°s
% Sesame. x
+
&

C TAY 4
a K Ss R 4
S7acinagan’ %

I

EVIEWING the long and difficult path
traversed by the Tajik people during
their centuries-old history one notes that the

most important stage of the journey began
after the October Revolution in Russia.
What was Tajikistan forty odd years ago?
Frequent and devastating invasions by brutal!
conquerors, the oppression of the tsarist colo-
nialists and the emirate of Bukhara had long
retarded its economic and cultural develop-
ment. There was virtually no industry, except
small artisan workshops. The wooden plough
and the hoe were the main implements used
in scratching the soil. Modern irrigation in-
stallations were unknown. The Emir, the beys,
officials and imams owned 85 per cent of the
land and 75 per cent of the livestock. For
the people even an oil lamp was a luxury.

The overwhelming majority of the peasant-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 23

ry lived in dire straits. Some 200,000 families
owned a mere 15 per cent of the land; about
three-quarters of their meager harvest went
to pay taxes. “Only the air was not taxed
in the Bukhara of the Emir,” wrote the Tajik
writer S. Aini. Territorially dispersed and
mercilessly exploited by feudal chiefs and
colonialists, the Tajiks were on the verge
of extinction as a nation.

The October Revolution brought with it
the dawn of better times for the backward,
outlying regions of Tsarist Russia, including
Tajikistan. In 1918 the newly-born Soviet
Russia, then experiencing serious economic
difficulties, assigned 50 million roubles for
irrigation work in Turkestan. As Lenin point-
ed out, the greatest need was irrigation which
more than anything else would transform and
revive the region, bury the past and clear
the way to socialism.

Russians and the other peoples helped the
Tajiks to crush counter-revolutionary gangs
known locally as basmachi, who, with the
backing of the Whiteguards and foreign im-
perialists, tried to overthrow Soviet power
and restore the old regime. Tajiks, Uzbeks,
Russians and Ukrainians fought shoulder to
shoulder in the mountains of Tajikistan. The
joint struggle against the common enemy
stirred the people of Central Asia to greater
activity, rallied them into the united Soviet
family. An expression of this unity was the
formation in August 1920, on the initiative
of the Bukhara Communist Party, of the unit-
ed front of the democratic and revolutionary
forces of Bukhara.

The uprising in Bukhara (September 1920),
under the impact of the October Revolution,
led to the establishment of the Bukhara
People’s Soviet Republic. This, however, was
not yet a socialist republic, the conditions
were not ripe for this at the time. Tajikistan
became a socialist republic four years later
when the Tajiks, with the fraternal aid of
the peoples of Russia, gradually developing
their economy and culture, took the first
steps towards building socialism.

II

Like many other outlying regions of Tsar-
ist Russia, Tajikistan began to build socialism
without passing through the capitalist stage
of development.

Marx and Engels pointed out that given
certain conditions such a development of
backward nations was possible and even in-
evitable. Lenin took up this idea, which had
been buried in oblivion by the opportunists

of the Second International, and enriched
it with the experience gained in the epoch
of imperialism and proletarian revolutions.

S . Can we,” he asked, “recognize as
correct the assertion that the capitalist stage
of development of the national economy is
inevitable for those backward nations now
gaining freedom and among whom, now, after
the war, we observe an advance in the direc-
tion of progress? To this we reply in the
negative. If the revolutionary victorious nro-
letariat conducts systematic propaganda
among them and if the Soviet governments
come to their aid with all the means at their
disposal, it would be wrong to assume that
the capitalist stage of development is inevit-
able for the backward nationalities . . ., with
the aid of the proletariat of the advanced
countries, the backward countries can go over
to the Soviet system and, after a definite
stage of development, to communism, by-
passing the capitalist stage of development.’’*

In the example of Tajikistan we have strilx-
ing confirmation of Lenin’s words. Our Party
pursued a carefully thought-out policy of
enlisting the formerly backward nations of
the Soviet East for socialist construction,
calling on its members to display the maxi-
mum caution, flexibility and patience. The
Party held that “. .. only the clesest attention
to the interests of the different nations can
remove the grounds for conflict and mutual
MISHISE......-.-7"

The Communist Party was able to overcome
the mistrust that had existed among the
peoples of Tsarist Russia and to unite them
in bonds of friendship because it had always
devoted close attention to their interests. to
their national peculiarities and aspirations,
because it combined this with educating the
working people of all nationalities in the
spirit of the socialist community and of care
for the common state interests.

The first decrees of the October Revolution,
for example, the “Declaration of Rights of
the Peoples of Russia,” abolished national
inequality and guaranteed the right to seif-
determination, respect for and protection of
national rights for all the peoples of Russia.
In March 1921, shortly after the founding
of the Bukhara People’s Soviet Republic, it
concluded a treaty with Soviet Russia in
which the latter confirmed its recognition of
the independence and sovereignty of Bukhara.

*The Report of the Commision on the National and Colonial
Questions at the Second Congress of the Communist Inter-
national, July 26, 1920.

**From Lenin’s Interview witls Farbman, Manchester Guar-

dian correspondent.

24

The territorial demarcation of the Central
Asian Republics in 1924 was further striking
proof of the consistent Leninist policy of our
Party on the national question. The sovereign
Uzbek and Turkmen Union Republics, with
the Tajik Autonomous Republic as part of
Uzbekistan, were established. Later, in De-
cember 1929, by which time the reunited Tajik
people had acquired experience in state affairs
and had made appreciable progress in eco-
nomic and cultural development, Taiikistan
was raised to the status of a Union Republic.

The sovereign Tajik Soviet Socialist Repub-
lic has its Supreme Soviet, Council of Min-
isters and local Soviets. The administrative
bodies are genuinely popular bodies since
nearly all the voters take part in the elections.
For instance, 99.94 per cent of the electorate
voted for the deputies of the present Supreme
Soviet who represent all nationalities inhabit-
ing the Republic. Among them are 198 Tajiks,
42 Uzbeks, 42 Russians, Kirghizians, Turk-
menians and Ukrainians.

The abolition of everything that could in
any way detract from political equality was
supplemented by overcoming the former eco-
nomic and cultural backwardness. The Com-
munist Party and the Soviet government
adhered to the view that the juridical national
equality brought about by the October Revo-
lution, and which is a great gain for the peo-
ples, does not in itself solve the national
question.

The Party has always concentrated on
overcoming the economic and cultural inequal-
ity, as vestiges of the pre-revolutionary past.
This inequality, said the Twelfth Party Con-
gress (1923) in its resolution on the national
question, can be overcome “only through
effective and long-term aid by the Russian
proletariat to the backward peoples of the
Union in their economic and cultural advance-
ment.”’* Four years later, the Fifteenth Party
Congress envisaged in the directives for the
first five-year plan “a corresponding .. . higher
rate of their economic and cultural develop-
Ment . . .°**

The aid extended by the Russian Federa-
tion, the most advanced in economic and
cultural respects, and also by other Soviet
Republics, played a decisive role in building
the socialist economy in Tajikistan and in
its industrialization. This was a manifesta-

*The C.P.S.U. im Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses,
Conferences and Plenums of the Central Committee. Vol. I,
p. 714.

**Ibid., Vol. II, p. 463.

WORLD MARKXIST REVIEW

tion of the profound internationalism of the
Soviet people and their Communist Party.

The Party and the government sent to our
Republic experienced cadres, experts in the
various branches of the economy, and cultural
workers; supplies of building materials, indus-
trial plant, motor vehicles and agricultural
machinery poured into our Republic; it also
received generous financial aid.

This fraternal aid ensured accelerated in-
dustrialization, the numerical growth of a
Tajik working class and the training of na-
tional cadres. By 1956 gross output of heavy
industry was over a thousand times greater
than in 1913 (as compared with 42 times
for the Russian Federation). Coal and ore-
mining, oil extraction, metal-processing, tex-
tile and other industries were developed and
hundreds of enterprises were built.

The more rapid industrialization in Tajiki-
stan as compared with the other more devel-
oped republics—this is a striking manifesta-
tion of one of the objective laws of socialist
society, that economically backward countries
or regions catch up with the advanced ones
with the help of the latter. While it took
centuries for the people of Russia to pass
from feudalism to modern socialist industry,
the Tajiks, like the other peoples of the
Soviet East, traversed this path in the space
of two or three five-year plan periods.

III

Every nine days Tajikistan manufactures
goods equal to its annual industrial output
before the First World War. The Leninabad
and Stalinabad silk mills, the Stalinabad
textile works, the mining and non-ferrous
metallurgical plants are the pride of the Re-
public. Tajik cotton and silk fabrics, tinned
fruit and vegetables and many other products
are known far beyond its borders.

Big hydro-electric stations on the Syr Darya
and Vakhsh Canal, and a number of others
have been built during Soviet years to meet
the needs of the, industries and of the popu-
lation. Their capacity can be judged by the
fact that the Syr Darya station alone gener-
ates 100 times more electricity than the entire
Turkestan region produced in 1913. Last year
the power stations of the Republic generated
nearly 2,400 times more power than in 1929
when the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic was
proclaimed.

Sweeping changes have taken place in ihe
countryside. Vast areas which had lain fallow
for ages have been irrigated and converted

ne
Ww
ad

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 25

into fertile cotton fields, orchards, vineyards.
In Soviet times about 1.5 billion roubles have
been invested in irrigation, increasing the
irrigated area eightfold. The construction in
1937 of an irrigation network turned the
Vakhsh Valley, a backward and sparsely pop-
ulated area in the recent past, into one of
the main producers of fine-fibre cotton.
Tajikistan holds first place in the world for
raw cotton productivity and is second to
Uzbekistan in gross cotton yield in the USSR.
Compared with pre-revolutionary days the
area under cotton has grown sixfold and the
overall crop more than 14-fold.

Similar progress has been made in other
branches of agriculture, now based on collec-
tive farming. A feature of collectivization in
Tajikistan and the other Soviet Republics of
Central Asia was that it was carried on in
the struggle not only against capitalist ele-
ments—rich peasants, merchants, etc. — but
also against feudal elements. This, naturally,
complicated the switching of small peasant
households to socialist farming. The example
of the Tajik and other eastern Republics
confirms the significance of Lenin’s co-opera-
tive plan for the formerly backward countries.
By drawing the small and middle producers
into the simpler forms of co-operation—
marketing, for example—the way was prepar-
ed for involving them in collective farming.
This accelerated the disintegration of the
tribal mode of life and educated the peasants
politically.

Collectivization was accompanied by me-
chanization. At present there are twelve
tractors per thousand hectares of farm land,
compared with Italy’s 9.8 and Pakistan’s 0.2.

The collective-farm system put an end to
the poverty and ignorance of the Tajik pea-
sants and helped them on to the highroad
of socialism and communism. Many examples
could be cited of the changes that have taken
place in rural life.

Take, for instance, the Moscow Collective
Farm (Leninabad District) led by Saidkhoja
Urunkhojayev, twice Hero of Socialist Labor.
Last year its income exceeded 27 million
roubles, and the value of its non-distributable
fund reached 57 million roubles. The collec-
tive farm has a fine house of culture, a well-
equipped hospital, 17 kindergartens and cre-
ches, 11 secondary schools, a radio trans-
mission center and a telephone exchange. The
number of cottages increases year by year;
in 1958 alone over 200 families moved to
new dwellings. Electricity is used in all
homes. All the children of school age attend

school—4,850 in elementary and secondary
schools, and 236 in higher educational estab-
lishments and specialized secondary schools.
Over 100 college-trained experts work on
this collective farm.

IV

The year 1957 marked the 1100th anniver-
sary of the birth of Abul-khasan Rudaki, the
founder of Tajik literature, “the prince of
poets,” as he is known in the East. A few
years earlier the literary public celebrated
the 1000th anniversary of Abu Ali ibn-Sina
(Avicenna), the famous encyclopaedist,
whose discoveries were widely known in Asia
and Europe. This shows that our people have
an ancient and rich culture.

Yet the majority of the people comprising
this nation, a nation which has made a nota-
ble contribution to world culture, had no
access to learning under the feudal system;
they lived in misery and ignorance. Prior
to Soviet power the Tajiks, like all the peoples
of Central Asia, were illiterate. Only one
person in two hundred could read and write.
The working people had never heard of a
theatre or club; no books, newspapers or jour-
nals were published.

After the October Revolution things chang-
ed. Illiteracy was wiped out. At present some
30,000 students are enrolled in nine higher
educational establishments and in secondary
professional schools. Every fifth Tajik is
studying in one way or another.

In the sphere of higher education Tajikistan
has the lead over quite a number of western
countries (not to speak of its eastern neigh-
bors). Its figure of 92 students per 10.000
of the population is 11 times that of Pakistan.
eight times that of Turkey, two-and-a-half
times that of France and three times that
of Italy.

A numerous Tajik intelligentsia has been
trained. More than 44,000 men and women
with higher and specialized secondary educa-
tion are now employed in industry, agricul-
ture and trade. The young Tajik Academy of
Sciences has become the center of extensive
research work. Four hundred and fifty of
the staff of 1,500 research workers have sci-
ence degrees. :

Socialist culture has penetrated to all parts
of the Republic. Clubs, houses of culture and
libraries function both in towns and in remote
mountain villages. It should be recalled that
before the October Revolution there was not
a single library on the territory of present-day

26

Tajikistan. At present the Republic has over
800 libraries, many of them with hundreds
of thousands of books. The Firdousi library,
for. example, has over a million books. Sixty-
three newspapers and twelve journals (with
a circulation of nearly 500,000 copies) are
published, and four million books are put out
annually. These figures speak for themselves.

One of the greatest gains of the socialist
revolution is, undoubtedly, the emancipation
of women. For centuries Tajik women lived
under the yoke of Shariat* which prohibited
them from participating in public life, from
studying literature and art or going without
the veil. Today, 108 Tajik women are deputies
to the Supreme Soviets of the USSR and
their Republic; nearly 4,000 women have been
elected to the local Soviets. Thousands more
are innovators, hold responsible posts in the
Party and government, run factories and
offices and manage collective and state farms.

Prior to the Revolution the vast majority
of Tajiks had never seen a doctor or a
hospital. There was only one hospital with
40 beds and 11 out-patient clinics in Tajiki-
stan. The people were treated by quacks.
Today, the Republic has 58 hospital beds per
10,000 population, which is eight times more
than in Iran and six times more than in
Turkey. It has surpassed Britain and Finland
in the number of doctors (over 2,000 in all)
per 1,000 of the population, to say nothing
about such countries as Iran, Turkey and
Pakistan.

This concern for public health together
with the general rise in the standard of living
has led to a big fall in moriality and sickness
incidence, to a rise in the birth rate. During
the past twenty years infantile mortality has
declined by 75 per cent. In 1956 the natural
growth of population (per 1,000) in Taiiki-
stan was five times greater than in Britain
and the German Federal Republic, four times
greater than in France and three times that
of Italy.

Tajikistan has changed beyond recognition.
Small wonder therefore that many foreign
visitors, who previously obtained information
on our Republic from doubiful sources, sneak
with admiration about our achievements. Here
are the impressions of Mr. Sharma, a govern-
ment consultant on agriculture (Nepal), who
made a tour of our Republic in October 1958:
“During our stay here we have satisfied our-
selves that you have wrought miracles. esne-
cially bearing in mind that you started from

*The canonical law of Islam.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

scratch. We see, for example, that you have
wiped out diseases such as typhus and small-
pox, and this should give us food for thought.
However, we know what can be done since
we have seen it for ourselves. You have
carried out a series of measures to build
medical and educational institutions and also
measures in the sphere of industry, for ex-
ample, the manufacture of agricultural ma-
chinery and the textile and canning industries.
I must say that what you have done in
industry adds up to a great achievement. We
think that your experience will be very
useful for our countries.”

Mrs. Haliman, member of a delegation of
British women who visited our Republic in
September 1957, said that before their visit
they had believed the stories about squalor,
bare rocks and deserts. But they had become
convinced that life had changed under the
collective-farm system, that agriculture was
thriving, and that the collective-farm incomes
benefited the people and their Republic. In-
stead of bare rocks they saw fertile cotton
fields, vineyards and orchards. They found
Tajikistan a blossoming orchard and admired
its progress. Such are the impressions ot
foreign guests who have visited us.

Vv

The prospects opening up before our Re-
public in the next seven years are truly
magnificent. The new plan (1959-65) envis-
ages further economic and cultural progress.
This plan, on which the people are now work-
ing with enthusiasm, tears into shreds the
inventions of bourgeois propaganda about the
one-sided, “purely agricultural” development
of the Soviet Asian Republics.

Capital to be invested into the Tajik econ-
omy in the next seven years will be as much
as was invested in all the years of Soviet
rule. The share of heavy industry in the total
industrial output will grow considerably.

Together with expansion of the existing
industries new branches will make their ap-
pearance—chemical, cement, electro-technical
and engineering —for which our Republic
has favorable natural and economic condi-
tions. Output of cement will rise 18-fold and
that of the engineering and metal-working
industries more than 2.5-fold. By 1965 the
Republic is expected to turn out 6,500 textile
machines a year.

New power stations will be put into opera-
tion, and electric power output will rise
2.4-fold.

l-
at
il

)-
|

1-

Is
e
le

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 27

A considerable increase in the output of
consumer goods is contemplated. More fab-
rics, footwear, clothing, meat, butter, tinned
food and other products will be available.
When the second and third sections of the
Stalinabad cotton mill are commissioned it
will be one of the biggest textile enterprises
in Central Asia, producing annually about
100 million meters of fabrics. A creamery
planned for Stalinabad, will produce more
butter than all the creameries of the Republic
produce today. A carpet mill in Khojent,
clothing factories, a footwear factory, a con-
fectionery factory and a number of others
will be put into operation during the seven-
year plan period.

The plan envisages agricultural investments
of 2.6 billion roubles—2.5 times more than
in the previous seven years. Cotton growing
—the main branch of Tajik agriculture—will
be extended, as will animal husbandry, or-
chards, vineyards and vegetable growing.
Cotton output will increase primarily due to
higher yields which by 1965 will reach an
average of 2.97 tons per hectare.

Wages and pensions will rise further, work-
ing hours will be reduced, and housing con-
struction will proceed at a still greater rate.

The experience of Tajikistan, like that of

the other Republics of the Soviet East, is of

great international significance. It demon-
strates that the colonial peoples need not
necessarily pass through the capitalist stage
of development.

“Everyone can now see,” said N. S. Khrush-
chov in his report to the 21st Party Congress,
“the immense socialist achievements of the
peoples of Kazakhstan and Central Asia, who
at the time of the Socialist Revolution had
either not reached the capitalist stage or
were only just entering it. They did not have
to go through the entire tormenting stage of
capitalist development. They were able to
bypass that stage and effect the transition
to socialism with the support and assistance
of the more advanced socialist nations, not-
ably the Russian socialist nation.”

The example of Tajikistan demonstrates the
utter groundlessness of the racist “theories”
to the effect that “backward nations” are
incapable of running their countries without
the bourgeoisie. The achievements of Tajiki-
stan are an inspiration to all the peoples
fighting for national independence and social
progress.

Among Our Contributors

L. ILYICHOV: Head of the Department of Agitation and Propaganda, C.C., Com-

munist Party of the Soviet Union.

HERBERT APTHEKER: Editor of “Political Affairs” (USA).

T. ULJABAYEV: First Secretary of the C.C., Communist Party of Tajikistan.
KHALED BAGDASH: General Secretary of the C.C., Syrian Communist Party.
AJOY GHOSH: General Secretary of the National Council of the Communist

Party of India.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

Two Trends in the Arab
National Movement

Khaled Bagdash

HE victory of the Iraqi revolution of July
14, 1958, raised the national-liberation
movement of the Arabs to a higher level. It
enthused the popular masses and all Arab
patriots. New vistas opened up for the liber-
ation of all the Arab countries from the
imperialist yoke and for a further advance
along the road of social reforms, democracy
and progress.

Soon, however, storm clouds gathered over
the Arab East and Arab solidarity was put
to a severe test when tension set in between
the United Arab Republic and the Republic
of Iraq. The anti-imperialist national fronts
in a number of countries were split or threat-
ened with a split. It would not be an ex2e-
geration to say that the end of 1958 marked
an extremely difficult time for the Arab
national-liberation movement. And for this
the ruling circles of the UAR are wholly to
blame. ;

What caused these complications? How can
the situation be remedied?

The Attitude Towards Imperialism
Is the Main Issue

First and foremost we should proceed from
the fact that in all the Arab countries the
struggle against imperialism is far from being
completed. Some are directly onpressed by
imperialism, others indirectly. The imperial-
ists still retain strong economic positions even
in countries with anti-imperialist govern-
ments. Oil extraction and the pipelines are
in the hands of United States and British
companies; a major portion of the banking
operations (credit, loans, etc.) are performed
by the imperialists. International monopolies
which control the market all too often dictate
export-import deals and fix prices for raw
materials. Nor have the liberated countries
got rid of the effects of imperialist rule, they
are still industrially backward. feudal sur-
vivals remain in the countryside; the people
live in poverty and, for the most part, are
illiterate.

The imperialists are doing everything to
maintain their rule and to restore it where
it has been abolished. Yet, the absurd claim
is made by some newspapers—mouthpieces
of influential Cairo circles—that the struggle
against imperialism has ended.

The national-liberation movement is faced
with the task of consolidating the indepen-
dence of countries which have won political
freedom, of achieving economic independence,
raising living standards and extending de-
mocracy. Still ahead is the struggle to liberate
the colonies occupied by imperialist forces
or indirectly dominated by imperialism.

These objectives (including the agrarian
reform) naturally do not go beyond the
bounds of capitalist production relationships,
nor do they go beyond the limits of the bour-
geois-democratic revolution; they by no means
signify the transition to socialism.

There is not a grain of truth in the asser-
tions made by Right-wing spokesmen to the
effect that the choice facing the national
bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie is: either
a terrorist dictatorship of the UAR type, or
communist rule.

Actually the point which is giving rise to
controversy inside the Arab liberation move-
ment is the attitude towards imperialism,
particularly American imperialism.

Some bourgeois circles in Egypt—the big
financiers as represented by the Misr bank,*
for instance—would like to direct the move-
ment for Arab unity along their particular
line and to subordinate the people of Egypt,
Syria, Iraq and the other Arab countries. With
this in view they abandoned Egyptian democ-
racy, trampled on democracy in Syria, and
are now striving to extend their influence to
Iraq. These circles are plotting conspiracies

*In a speech on July 24, 1959, President Nasser referred to
the Misr bank as a “people’s institution in which all the
sons of the country participate.” In reality this bank which
—— Is 20 large industrial and commercial companies is the

tronghold of the big bourgeoisie. Al Ahram—N: asser’ s mouth-
piec -e—lauds the Misr bank as a “fourth Pyramid.”

—t PS ame (YO

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 29

(the Mosul for example) and slandering Iraq,
despite the fact that all Arab patriots want
to see an independent Iraq develop along

democratic lines. That is why they, at the .

international level, are pandering to the im-
perialists, primarily those of the U.S., and
in home policy are currying favor with the
reactionary forces.

Hence their first slogan: the struggle against
imperialism has ended or is about to end;
and second: the “communist danger” at home
must be combatted (this slogan was later
broadened to “international communism”).

The disgusting way in which this anti-com-
munist campaign was launched at the end of
1958 has shocked the Arab world. Nasser, his
press, radio and stooges have vilified the
Soviet Union, the true friend of the Arab
people. They screamed that the Soviet Union
was interfering in the internal affairs of the
Arab countries and was aiming to dominate
them. In reality the successes of the Arabs
in their fight against imperialism were won
thanks to the support of the socialist camp,
and above all the Soviet Union.

The line pursued by the Right-wing circles
of the Arab national movement fully suits
American imperialism which tries to under-
mine Arab-Soviet friendship and to create
tension between the UAR and the socialist
countries.

The anti-communist diatribes have greatly
alarmed the masses and considerable sections
of nationalists in all the Arab countries. Patri-
ots have tried to fathom the real reasons for
the campaign for which they could not find
any justification. They feared that the cam-
paign would have grave consequences for
the Arab countries.

Events were to confirm that there were
grounds for the bewilderment, anxiety and
apprehension.

The facts revealed that the UAR was in-
clining more and more towards compromise
with the imperialists, and with the American
imperialists in particular.

First, an Anglo-Egyptian financial agree-
ment—detrimental to Egypt’s interests—was
concluded. This was followed by other agree-
ments with Britain, which restored to the
latter her former imperialist positions. The
International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (under American control) is
increasingly interfering in the economy of the
UAR. In the guise of observing the use to
which the credits are put the Bank has sent
numerous missions to Cairo which, on the

pretext of drafting reports on the budget
and the country’s economic development,
meddle in all branches of the economy.

The UAR has opened its doors also to West
German, Japanese and Italian capital. Partic-
ularly significant is the penetration of West
German capital, chiefly in the Egyptian re-
gion. These countries are acting not only on
their own, but also in the interests of U.S.
imperialism.

Yielding to Washington’s pressure, the
rulers of the UAR are becoming increasingly
indifferent to the plight of the one million
Arab refugees banished from Palestine by the
Israeli government, as well as to the cause
of the Algerian freedom fighters. Instead of
tangible aid there is lip service to “solidarity”
with Algeria.

This turn in the political course of the
Nasser government, which has opened the
doors to foreign capital, is accompanied by
rapprochement with the most reactionary
pro-imperialists in the Arab East. Cairo has
widely publicized the renewal of friendly
relations with King Saud and King Hussein
on the basis of complete agreement on all
the issues confronting the Arab world. This
news was received with displeasure in the
Arab countries. Only a few months before
that Nasser had accused King Saud of plotting
against Arab nationalism, and King Hussein
of being an agent of imperialism and an
enemy of Arab unity. What has happened?
Certainly, neither of the kings has changed!
Who has, then? That is the question now
being asked in Arab nationalist circles.

Arab patriots, including those who at first
were taken in by the slogan of struggle
against the “internal and international com-
munist danger,” a slogan allegedly engendered
by the policy of “positive neutrality,” have
begun to realize where this new policy is
leading, a policy which coincides with the
selfish interests of some sections of the Egyp-
tian bourgeoisie, chiefly the Misr financial
group. As a matter of fact, this group still
advocates the sterile “Eisenhower-Dulles doc-
trine’ — filling the vacuum created in the
Middle East by the ending of Anglo-French
imperialist domination. It is common know-
ledge that the people of the Arab countries
turned down this doctrine. Afterwards, Egyp-
tian monopoly circles conceived the idea of
filling the “vacuum” themselves, with the
help of and in co-operation with American
imperialism.

But what is the Misr Bank compared with
the power of U.S. imperialist capital! Is it

30

not clear how this “co-operation” wili develop
when the forces are so unequal? A near-sight-
ed policy such as this is fraught with the
danger of U.S. imperialist domination of the
Arab world. =

Thus, the aforementioned trend is gradually
degenerating and evolving into its antithesis.

The other trend stands for continuing the
national-liberation struggle with the object of
achieving political and economic indepen-
dence, extending democracy, cementing Arab
solidarity and furthering friendship and co-
operation with the socialist countries. This
line is supported by the people, by all Arab
patriots.

The fact that the working class and its
vanguard—the Communist parties—rank high
among the patriotic forces and enjoy prestige
in most of the Arab countries is explained
above all by the consistent anti-imperialist
struggle waged by the workers under Com-
munist leadership. It should be said that the
major share of the losses is sustained by the
Communists.

Another important force in the movement
are the peasants and the middle sections in
the towns—handicraftsmen, small shopkeep-
ers and intellectuals. These sections are vital-
ly concerned with furthering the anti-imper-
ialist national fronts of Arab solidarity and
Arab-Soviet friendship.

A considerable part of the national bour-
geoisie also realizes that the U.S. imperialists
are interested not only in persecuting Com-
munists and other democrats—this is but a
step towards a more important objective,
namely, isolation of the Arab countries and
undermining their political and economic
relations with the socialist countries—but also
in establishing full domination over the Arab
world. This part of the national bourgeoisie
does not relish the idea of being placed at
the mercy of U.S. imperialism. It has seen
that co-operation with the Soviet Union and
the other socialist countries is economically
beneficial to the Arab countries, since there
are no political strings of any kind attached
to the aid granted by the socialist countries.

Thus now, as in the past, the interests of
most classes and sections — working class,
peasants, national bourgeoisie, urban petty
bourgeoisie—are threatened by imperialism,
and, as in the past, the conditions exist for
a united national front of all anti-imperialist
forces.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

Arab Nationalism and Arab Unity

The Arab Communists and other progres-
sives are by no means opponents of national-
ism or Arab unity. On the contrary, they are
anxious to see both Arab nationalism and
unity develop along the road of progress and
democracy.

Arab nationalism, a movement aimed at
unifying the Arab countries, arose out of the
struggle waged against imperialism, and this
distinguishes it from nationalism which took
shape in Europe before the advent of imper-
ialism. As Lenin put it: “The bourgeois
nationalism of every oppressed nation has a
general democratic content which is directed
against oppression, and it is this content that
we support unconditionally .. .”*

It is a fact that every step of the Arab
nationalist movement in all the countries was
violently resisted by the imperialists. This
circumstance largely determined the demo-
cratic and progressive content of Arab na-
tionalism, which is expressed in the striving
to abolish imperialist domination and also in
the solidarity with the peace forces of the
whole world.

The Right wing wants to destroy this pro-
gressive content by converting the national-
ists into the allies of U.S. imperialism. How-
ever, it would do them no harm to recall
that none other than Nuri Said claimed to
be the standard-bearer of “Arab nationalism.”
Nuri Said rallied all the reactionary elements
round this banner, proclaiming that interna-
tional communism was enemy No. 1 of
nationalism.

What would remain of the nationalism of
a nation disunited and oppressed for genera-
tions by imperialism, weakened by it econo-
mically, politically and militarily, were that
nationalism to abandon the aspirations of the
masses and isolate itself from the progressive
forces on the international arena? Clearly it
would degenerate into a movement of a small,
isolated group, into a cover for an alliance
between that group and the imperialists.

Experience has shown that Arab national-
ism can develop into a considerable force
only in the common struggle of the Arab
peoples for their liberation. Arab unity has a
real basis. The Arabs belong to a common
race speaking a common language and with
a common culture; they are gradually acquir-
ing other features essential to the formation
of a nation. However, of overriding impor-

*V. I. Lenin, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination.

ER li i

ae a Ss

we

a se Se er CU

we a WO OO

a)

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 31

tance is the fact that ever since the downfall
of the great Arab state which had its capital
first in Damascus and later in Baghdad, the
Arabs have lived for centuries in different
countries and under varying conditions. Long
before World War I the imperialists seized
a considerable portion of the Arab East and
established their domination (in Egypt, the
Sudan, Maghreb, Aden and in the Emirates
in the southern part of the Arabian Peninsula,
etc.). After World War I they seized the
whole of the Arab East.

It is obvious that the unity of the Arab
countries depends on their liberation. That is
why their solidarity in the anti-imperialist
struggle for winning and maintaining their
independence is the decisive factor in the
Arab unity movement. We should bear in
mind the different conditions in each country
as well as the fact that the forms of the
unity may vary; moreover, at the present
stage a complete merger of all the Arab
countries into a single state is by no means
imperative.

Lebanon is a striking example in this re-
spect. Even the ardent supporters of Arab
unity recognize, in their overwhelming major-
ity, its specific position and have never
suggested including it in the plans for inter-
Arab unification. This does not mean, how-
ever, that Lebanon is not an Arab country and
that the patriots there do not support the
establishment of firm political, economic and
cultural relations between the Arab countries.

Let us take those countries which stand for
unification, or even those like Syria and Egypt
which have already achieved this. Some of
these, for instance, have textile industries.
In one country the cost of production is lower
than in another. Without taking this into
account a hasty unification could have the
effect of the industry of one country impair-
ing that of the other. And in the outcome a
clash between the two groups of industrialists
could evolve into a conflict between the two
countries.

Or another example: the average wage of
the Syrian worker (Syria has a population
of four million) is twice or even three times
that of the Egyptian worker (Egypt has a
population of 24 million). Is it possible in the
space of a few years after unification to raise
the level of Egyptian wages to the Syrian
level? Of course, not! The reverse is more
likely: the standard of living in the smaller
country will fall to that of the larger country,
that is, the conditions of the Syrian workers
will deteriorate, while those of the Egyptian

workers will remain unchanged. Only a sec-
tion of the Egyptian bourgeoisie will benetit

‘from this move.

One more example: Syria has an established
democratic tradition — freedom of speech,
press, assembly, trade unions, political par-
ties, etc. — which is not confined to a privi-
leged circle of feudal lords, capitalists and
professional politicians. These traditions have
made their way to the masses who used them
in the fight for their rights and to exercise
control over their rulers. Is it possibile to
abolish democratic traditions by a single
stroke of the pen without evoking censure
and protests?

Towards the end of 1958 one of the ideolo-
gists of the Baas Party described as “reac-
tionary” the objective conditions in Syria
“lamented” by the Communists. But is indus-
try in one or another Arab state a reactionary
phenomenon which should be abolished? Or
what is there reactionary about a high level
of wages? Perhaps the democratic freedoms
enjoyed by the people are likewise reaction-
ary and should be annulled?

In the year that has passed since this
statement was made, the Baas Party, thanks
to its policy, has lost the last vestige of the
trust reposed in it by the Syrian people. It
found itself so completely isolated that even
Nasser decided to get rid of it in a bid to win
the confidence of those sections in Syria
which are hostile to it. We would like to ask
the Baas leaders whether they agree that
they, too, should be classed with “reactionary
objective conditions” which should be abol-
ished? As the Syrian saying has it, “experi-
ence opens the eyes even of the blind.” But
it is doubtful if this saying can be applied
to the Baas Party. am,

Any attempt to ignore or distort objective
conditions is bound to fail. Prior to the unifi-
cation, both Egyptian and Baas propaganda
claimed that to make it a success the condi-
tions in the two countries should be brought
“into line.” This was their argument for the
dissolution of the political parties and parlia-
ment in Syria and the elimination of freedom
of speech, press, assembly and trade unions.
They told the people that these “minor sacri-
fices” of a temporary nature were nothing
as compared with the blessings that would
flow from unification.

What are the “blessings,” and what are
the results of the two years of unification?

Prior to the mezger the Syrian economy as
a whole was doing well. Today Syria, a
traditional exporter of grain, imports grain

32

from the United States, Italy and other coun-
tries. The area under cotton has been reduced
and rice cultivation has also declined.

Trade is stagnant. Industrial output is fall-
ing. In the textile industry—a major branch
in Syria—many small mills and shops have
been closed down. The Haleb textile mills,
the largest in the country, are curtailing
production, laying off workers or putting them
on short time. Leather tanning, sugar refining
and furniture making are in a similar plight.
The owners of a number of soap factories
have been ruined. Thousands are out of work,
to say nothing of the tens of thousands who,
in the hope of finding jobs, have migrated
to neighboring countries, Lebanon for in-
stance. According to Beirut statistics some
50,000 Syrian workers are registered in
Lebanon.

Syrian currency has declined in value and
investments are reduced to a trickle—much
of the capital is finding its way abroad. The
cost of living has risen; not since World War
II has Syria known such high prices for meat
and butter.

The basic reason for this deterioration lies
in the policy of Cairo in respect to the Syrian
area, a policy adapted to the interests of the
Egyptian monopoly circles who regard the
unification as a means for capturing the
Syrian market and dominating the Syrian
economy.

For this purpose cotton growing in Syria
should either cease, or if not, the growing,
marketing, exporting and processing of it
should be completely subordinated to the
interests of the Egyptian money bags. Syrian
rice is also to yield place to Egyptian rice.
Syria’s textile industry must either disappear,
ceding its market in the country and else-
where to Egyptian textiles, or be taken over
by Egyptian capital. Cheap Egyptian fabrics
(resulting from the low wages in the Egyptian
area) have inundated the Syrian market,
causing heavy losses to the owners of the
Syrian textile mills. While the small mills
are being closed down and the large ones
are expecting the same fate, a new textile
mill is about to be built in the Syrian area
on money granted by the Misr Bank.

Syrian intellectuals are also suffering from
unemployment, being ousted from Syrian

schools by Egyptian instructors and teachers.

If to this we add the dismissal of thousands
of civil servants and military officers we will
get a complete picture of the situation in
Syria 18 months after the unification.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

The Syrian people are asking what has
happened to the plans outlined in the econom-
ic agreements with the socialist countries.
True, construction of the Homs oil refinery
started by Czechoslovakia prior to the unifi-
cation has been completed. And what about
the other projects mentioned in the Soviet-
Syrian agreements of 1957? Nothing is heard
of them, though more than two years have
passed. The people know that the Soviet
Union has always lived up to its promises.
The public express anxiety in connection with
reports that have leaked through the press
to the effect that the Cairo government in-
tends to revise these projects and hand them
over to the Western powers.

Political life in Syria is characterized by
an arbitrary rule unprecedented in the modern
history of the country. All the national parties
have been dissolved. Even the fundamentals
of the provisional constitution unilaterally
proclaimed by Nasser on the morrow of the
unification, have been consigned to the waste
paper basket. The provisional parliament, the
deputies of which were to be appointed by
the President and which was to function
throughout the transitional period (it was to
include half the former members of both the
Egyptian and Syrian Parliaments), never saw
the light of day, despite the fact that its
prerogatives were considerably whittled away.

The elections to the National Union last
July were a farce and left no noticeable trace
in ‘public life. The “elected” local committees
have no idea of how they should function.
When they made timid attempts to act, they
were given to understand that they had
“exceeded” their powers and that the authori-
ties knew their business. Very soon the
committees were completely forgotten.

The best sons of the people—thousands
of democrats: workers, peasants, handicrafts-
men, Officers, intellectuals—languish in prison
in Syria and in Egypt. Many (except the 64
Egyptian patriots tried behind closed doors
in Alexandria last August and September)
have been jailed without trial. In Syria the
post of investigator in the prosecutor’s office
has been abolished and all investigations are
carried out by the police.

The torture is similar to that practised by
the fascists: needles are thrust under the
finger nails; prisoners are dipped into icy
cold and scalding hot water; they are beaten
until they lose consciousness; they are sub-
jected to torture by fire and electricity; air
is pumped into their bodies; they are starved,

ov wumebUYVWmGmhCOF

— aS

Rr SS OP oars Owens ww es

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 33

deprived of sleep by blinding light or noise,
and buried to their necks in earth.

Many have died, including the teachers
Said Drubi, Muheddin Faliun and the student
George Adass.

The secret police resort to gangster meth-
ods. Farjallah Helou, a prominent figure in
the Arab liberation movement and secretary
of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of Lebanon, was seized in Damascus.
The secret police refused to admit the fact
of his arrest. Rumors of the torture to which
he was subjected aroused indignation. In
Lebanon, as in the other Arab countries and
all over the world the democratic public
initiated protest campaigns which evolved
into a movement for the liberation of the
courageous fighter Farjallah Helou.

In autumn 1958, a few months after the
unification, when Syria experienced economic
and political difficulties, the Communist Party
advanced a political platform which could
be a sound basis for developing the United
Arab Republic.

The platform proposed the setting up of
separate governments for the Syrian and
Egyptian areas (side by side with the central
government of the United Arab Republic
which would concern itself with defense,
foreign policy and other questions of common
interest); the establishment of economic re-
lations between Syria and Egypt on a basis
which would further the economic, primarily
the industrial, development of both areas; free
elections; safeguards for freedom of speech,
the press, assembly, political parties, trade
unions and peasant organizations; an exten-
sive agrarian reform which would guarantee
land and implements to the landless peasants.

In the sphere of foreign policy the platform
called for fraternal relations and close co-
operation with the Republic of Iraq, friend-
ship with the Soviet Union and the other
socialist countries so as to ensure the inde-
pendence and economic development of the
UAR; for countering the imperialist intrigues,
particularly the American, protection of the
economy against penetration of imperialist
capital.

The Communist platform aroused the wrath
of the Misr Bank. In a speech at Port Said
on December 23, 1958, Nasser accused the
Syrian Communist Party of separatism and
resistance to Arab unity and nationalism. This
started savage reprisals against the national
democratic forces of Syria and Egypt. The
Syrian Communist Party was forced to go
underground for the fourth time in its history.

Yet the people have wholeheartedly sup-
ported this platform, which has become a
kind of national charter. All patriots see that
it proposes a correct solution to the problem
of Arab unity while rebuffing the imperialist
attempts to split this unity and to provoke
inter-Arab strife.

The Arab Liberation Movement,
Democracy and Social Reform

It is impossible to separate the national-
liberation movement from the question of
democracy and fundamental social reforms,
which is what the Right wing in the Arab
national movement, primarily the UAR ruiing
circles, would like to do.

Were we to believe what the UAR rulers
say, then they, far from being opposed to
social change, are engaged in building a
“democratic, co-operative, socialist society.”
So far they have not defined this system.
Their statements on the subject are exceed-
ingly vague. In a speech at Damascus Nasser
claimed that the object of his brand of ‘“so-
cialism”’ was to prevent both exploitation of
workers by capitalists and exploitation of
capitalists by workers (!). To date, however,
this “socialism” has brought the workers of
Syria and Egypt nothing but the banning of
their parties, trade unions, press, the arrest
of union leaders, unemployment and higher
prices.*

The “co-operative” nature of this system
can be seen from the compulsion brought to
bear on the peasants to join the co-operatives
together with wealthy farmers and landlords.
Although there is no question as to who will
dominate these co-operatives, even these have
not met with much success either in Egypt
or in Syria.

While the so-called “social democracy”
(which the UAR rulers oppose to political
democracy) is designed, in their words, ‘‘to
abolish feudalism,” and “put an end to the
domination of capital over the government,”
the actual trend in the UAR is totally dif-
ferent.

Let us take the so-called agrarian reform
law. In reality it is not a law on agrarian
reform but at best a law providing for a
certain restriction of feudal landownership.
An examination of its application in Egypt
would show that real power in the village
is still basically in the hands of the big land-
Jords. The peasants who qualified for plots
under the law are in grave difficulties and

*In a speech on July 24 Nasser admitted that Egypt had
approximately one million unemployed.

many have again become landless. As to
Syria, the chances are that the results will
not be any better, if anything they will be
worse.

How are they “putting an end” to the
domination of capital over the government?
It is universally known that the entire activity
of the UAR government is subordinated to
the interests of the big bourgeoisie in Cairo.
The new line in UAR policy—opening the
doors to imperialist capital—indicates that
the comprador bourgeoisie too is beginning
to exert an influence on the government.

The Arab peoples have sacrificed much
for freedom. They encountered the frantic
resistance of the imperialists, who loathe
democratic freedoms and who stop at nothing
to strangle them. Such is the truth which
can neither be ignored nor denied. The out-
come is that the struggle for independence
will inevitably merge with the struggle for
democracy.

If we turn to the experience of the Syrian
Republic in 1954-57 when the country enjoyed
broad democracy, we will see that neither
imperialism nor feudalism could make use
of the democratic freedoms to their advant-
age. On the contrary, these freedoms sapped
the positions of imperialism, feudalism and
the reactionaries generally. And yet some
people claim that Syrian democracy benefited

34 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

chiefly the imperialists! Far from it — the
experience of Syria and Iraq proves beyond
doubt that only under democracy is it possible
to mobilize the forces of the people for the
struggle against imperialism, for progress
and prosperity.

Any attempt to deprive the Arab liberation
movement of its democratic content is bound
to fail. The working class of the Arab coun-
tries has grown not only numerically, its
political consciousness has likewise grown.
It is better organized. It has been tempered
in the battles against imperialism, and there
is no force capable of removing it from the
arena of struggle.

The working class of the Arab countries
is confronted with an historic task: to rally
around itself the peasant masses and all work-
ing people, all progressives, with a view to
achieving complete victory over imperialism.

In its grim struggle for independence, peace
and democracy, the politically conscious
workers and peasants, all patriots and demo-
crats hold aloft the banner of the national
and democratic traditions in which the liber-
ation struggle in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq,
Jordan and other Arab countries is so rich.
Marching beneath this banner they will add
new pages to the glorious history of the
Arab peoples.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 35

Kerala

Ajoy Ghosh

N July 31, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, the

President of the Indian Union, on the
advice of the Union Cabinet headed by Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, issued a procla-
mation dismissing the Government of Kerala,
dissolving the elected State Legislature, sus-
pending even the limited autonomy of the
State and imposing the President’s rule on
the State. Thus was brought to an end the
first Communist-led Government in an Indian
State.*

For the first time in the history of the
Indian Republic an elected State Ministry
found itself dismissed at a time when 1t
enjoyed the support of the majority in the
State Legislature.

The ousting of the Kerala Government was
followed by spontaneous strikes and demon-
strations in Kerala and in many parts of the
country. This was the prelude to the massive
protest demonstrations that took place on
August 3, the day when the Indian Parliament
reassembled after the summer recess.

Why did this happen? Why was the Kerala
Government dismissed? Why did its dismissal
evoke such protests?

No answer can be found to these questions
if one studies the Presidential Proclamation
of July 31 alone. That Proclamation merely
stated that the President is “satisfied that a
situation has arisen in which the government
of that State (Kerala) cannot be carried on
in accordance with the provisions of the Con-
stitution of India.” No charge was levelled
against the Kerala Government, not a word
was said as to how the Kerala Government
had violated the provisions of the Constitution
cr what was eloquently indicative of the
guilty conscience of those who were respon-
sible for the President’s Proclamation and of
their unwillingness to come before the people
with their real reasons.

To know what these real reasons were, it
is necessary to state how the Communist-led
Government of Kerala came to be formed,
what it did, which classes and interests its

*The Kerala Government consisted of 11 members, nine
Communists and two Independents who accepted the Com-
munist electoral program and were elected with the support
of the Communists—Ed,

policies and measures benefited and whom
they harmed, what impact Kerala had on
the other States.

The Communist-led Government of Kerala
was formed in April 1957 after the Second
General Elections. These elections marked an
impressive advance of the forces of Indian
democracy at whose head stood the Commu-
nist Party of India. Belying official expecta-
tions and the fears of some of its own
friends, the Communist Party polled over 12
million votes (11 per cent of the total),
double the votes it had polled in the 1951-52
elections. It won a majority of the seats in
the predominantly working-class constituen-
cies. It increased its strength in most of the
State Legislatures, retaining its position as
the second party in the Indian Parliament.

But by far the most significant result of
the General Elections, one that was to exer-
cise profound influence on Indian politics in
the forthcoming period, was the success of
the Communist Party in winning, together
with five progressive Independents whom it
supported, an absolute majority of seats—65
out of 126—in the Kerala State Legislature.
This caused consternation in the ranks of
reactionaries and in the dominant leadership
of the Congress Party. They would have
liked, even in those days, to prevent the
formation of a Communist-led Ministry. But
democratic opinion in India would not have
tolerated that.

The formation of the Communist Ministry,
headed by Comrade E. M. S. Namboodiripad,
a member of the Political Bureau of the
Communist Party of India, was hailed with
joy by workers and peasants all over the
country. Democratic-minded people in all par-
ties, including those in the Congress, welcom-
ed it, hoping that the measures taken by
the Kerala Government would be emulated
by other State Ministries and that the move-
ment for democratic reforms would receive
a powerful impetus.

The hopes reposed in the Kerala Govern-
ment by the masses were not belied. It did
not lie within the power of the Ministry,
circumscribed as it was by the provisions of
the Indian Constitution and the general poli-

36

cies laid down by the Indian Government, to
introduce radical reforms such as immediate
transfer of land to the tillers, nationalization
of the British-owned plantations and effective
democratization of the administrative appa-
ratus. It was a Government wiih limited
powers. Nevertheless, right from the outset,
the Namboodiripad Government set about its
tasks in a manner which left no doubt in
one’s mind that, unlike Congress Govern-
ments, it was serious about implementing the
pledges that it had given to the people during
the election campaign.

Frankly placing before the people the diffi-
culties and limitations under which it had
to work, the Kerala Government proclaimed
that it could not build socialism in Kerala,
nor even lay the basis for it, but would strive
to carry out what the Congress Party itself
had always declared but had not implemented.
In other words, its effort would be to carry
out those democratic reforms which the
national movement as a whole had accepted
as desirable and necessary. It sought the
co-operation of every party and individual
in the State for this task.

Space does not permit a detailed narration
of what the Kerala Government did in 28
months. A few facts, however, can be men-
tioned.

The police in every State in India had won
unenviable notoriety in British days for its
oppressive and corrupt character. This tradi-
tion was continued by the Congress. Ever
ready to come to the help of big capitalists
and landlords, the Congress and Praja-So-
cialist Governments had used the police to
suppress struggles of the working class, peas-
ants and other sections. The Namboodiripad
Government formulated a new police policy,
granting full freedom to the masses to conduct
peaceful action to win their legitimate de-
mands.

The Kerala Government passed the Mini-
mum Wages Act for workers in eighteen
factories and for agricultural workers. The
Maternity Benefit Act made things better for
women workers. The National and Festival
Holidays Act provided for seven paid holi-
days, including May Day. Contract labor in
road building and in some other industries
which had been a source of corruption and
ruthless exploitation was handed over to 42
labor contract societies.

The Government also helped the workers
to secure higher wages. Wage increases rang-
ing from 10 to 100 per cent were effected
in the various industries. Practically all

WORLD MARKXIST REVIEW

workers received annual bonuses and improv-
ed their conditions to some extent. The Agri-
culturists Debt Relief Act gave substantial
relief to the peasantry, safeguarding them
from the rapacity of moneylenders. A com-
prehensive Education Act raised the status
of teachers and freed them from the arbit-
rary rule of corrupt and oppressive managers.
Changes were made in the taxation policy
—putting as far as possible the main burden
of taxation on the wealthier classes. Simul-
taneously work was begun on a plan for full
and all-round utilization of the water re-
sources of the State.

The Kerala Government, whose head, Nam-
boodiripad, has been one of the foremost
leaders of the Indian peasant movement, paid
special attention to the basic problem of
India—the land reform.

The contrast between words and deeds,
ever a feature of the Congress Party, stood
out sharp and clear in its attitude to the
agrarian problem. As for the Communists,
they earnestly set about solving this vital
issue. One of the first acts of the Kerala
Ministry was to prohibit the eviction of peas-
ants. In recent years vast numbers of peasants
in every State had been evicted from their
land. The big landlords, fearing the distribu-
tion of their land under a possible agrarian
reform, sought to keep it in their possession
as “self-cultivated” land by evicting the
peasants. The Kerala Government put an end
to this arbitrary rule.

After intensive study and preparation the
Government worked out a comprehensive
Agrarian Relations Bill which, when imple-
mented, would go a long way to free the
peasantry from the evil of landlordism. This
bill was hailed by the peasantry all over the
country. These measures enabled the Kerala
Government to win increasing support among
the workers, peasants and working intelli-
gentsia. This was strikingly seen in the by-
election that took place last year at Devicolam
and in the results of the local elections. The
masses all over the country began to look
upon the Kerala Government as the champion
of the working people. The demand was
voiced that other State Governments should
do what Kerala was doing.

The reactionaries in Kerala — landlords,
British plantation owners and big capitalists
—resented these reforms. So did their politi-
cal allies—the Congress Party, the Praja-
Socialist Party and the Muslim League
leaders. In the forefront of the opposition
stood the Roman Catholic Bishops. The

a ok om oh oe Ok me lm}

5 > ' - ss *

ee OO ee

(2 onto

— YO wr met

adn ~

Is,
ts
ti-
ja-
ue

on
he

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 37

Catholic Church, which receives heavy sub-
sidies from America, is a powerful force in
the social, political and economic life of
Kerala; it controls a large number of private
schools and owns vast landed and other
property.

In these conditions every progressive mea-
sure of the Kerala Government had to be
carried out in the teeth of bitter resistance.
The resistance grew in intensity with every
measure. It became most fierce when the
reactionaries realized that the Government
was determined to carry out the land reform.
At no time during its existence was the
Government given any respite. Seizing upon
every pretext, utilizing every grievance of
every section of the people, resorting to every
tactic, the opposition forces tried to hamper
its work, to foment struggle against it.

But alone they could achieve little. And so
they sought the support of the all-India
leaders of the Congress Party who controlled
the Central Government and the Governments
in the other thirteen States. In this, they
were not disappointed. From the time of the
formation of the Communist-led Government
of Kerala, some all-India Congress leaders,
headed by the then Congress President, Mr.
U. N. Dhebar, slandered the Government and
called for Central Government intervention
against it. They were directly aided by a
number of Ministers in the Central Govern-
ment, including Mr. Morarji Desai—the pre-
sent Finance Minister.

It was argued by the supporters of Big
Business that the existence of a Communist-
led Government in one part of India was a
hindrance to aid from the USA. It should
be mentioned that a few months after the
second general elections in India, in Septem-
ber 1957, Mr. John Foster Dulles said at a
press conference: ‘Local election victories
by Communists in India and Indonesia is a
dangerous trend. It is a dangerous trend
whenever Communists move towards politi-
cal control.”

A few days after this and as though com-
menting on Mr. Dulles’ observations, Mr. T.
T. Krishnamachari, then Finance Minister of
the Government of India, said in the course
of an interview to an American paper on
the eve of his departure to Washington for
American aid: “We have to try to explain
to them (Americans) that the battle in India
is a battle against Communism too. We lost
the State of Kerala to the Communists and
one of the reasons behind it was that we

could not spend enough money for develop-
ment there.”

Not one of the top leaders of the Congress
alleged at any time that the Kerala Govern-
ment was trying to carry out “communist
measures.” Not one of them dared assail any
of the specific policies of the Kerala Govern-
ment. The hostility sprang from the fact that
the Kerala Government was serving the in-
terest of the workers, peasants, working
intelligentsia and the impact that this was
having on other States — discrediting the
Congress and giving impetus to the demand
for democratic reforms. The reactionaries
feared the growth of the democratic move-
ment and the strengthening position of the
Communist Party of India. At a meeting of
the All-India Congress Committee a Congress
leader frankly stated that if the Kerala Gov-
ernment was allowed to continue, the “infec-
tion” would spread all over the country.
Kerala also caused apprehension among the
leaders of the Praja-Socialist Party because
they realized that the continuation of the
Communist -led Government would swing
increasing sections of the masses still under
their influence towards the Communist Party.

All this led to a continuous and sustained
campaign on an all-India scale against the
Kerala Government. This, however, was ef-
fectively countered by the work of the Kerala
Government and by the campaign carried out
by the Communist Party in co-operation with
democratic elements all over the country.

A year ago, in alliance with reactionary
forces, the Congress and the Praja-Sociatist
Party in Kerala launched a campaign of vio-
lence and lawlessness, trying to provoke a
crisis which would justify intervention by the
Central Government. The attempt failed,
thanks to the support the Kerala Government
enjoyed among the people in the State and
the all-India campaign conducted in defense
of Kerala; but it revealed the gravity of the
peril. Reviewing these and earlier develop-
ments, the National Council of the Communist
Party of India which met in October 1958
stated in its resolution:

“The danger and threat cf the Central
intervention are by no means gone. The
Congress leaders know that the Kerala gov-
ernment is gaining in prestige and stature
every day, while their chances of returning
to power in that State through elections are
fast receding. With the Congress Governments
becoming increasingly discredited and iso-
lated in other States, they are afraid of the

38

success and achievements of the Kerala
Government.”

The offensive launched against the Kerala
Government in June this year and which
culminated in its dismissal was, therefore,
not unexpected. However, some features of
this offensive merit attention.

First, it was launched at a time when the
Kerala Government had considerably streng-
thened its position among the masses, when
it was about to implement a number of mea-
sures passed by the State Assembly and aimed
at substantially improving the conditions of
the people. Most important of these was the
Agrarian Relations Bill.

Second, the agitation this time was not
begun by the political parties. Conscious that
their earlier agitation had failed to secure
mass backing, they turned for support to
organizations which could work up religious,
communal and caste passions and hysteria—
the Catholic Church and the Nair Service
Society. It was these organizations that spear-
headed the agitation and behind them march-
ed the Congress and the Praja-Socialist Party,
drawing into the combination the Muslim
League.

Third, the agitators did not put forward
any specific demand. Not daring to assail any
specific policy of the Kerala Government
except certain clauses of the Education Act
on which they too were not united, they put
forward only cne demand—the Kerala Gov-
ernment should resign.

Fourth, their open and declared tactic, pub-
licized in the press, preached from the pulpit
and at hundreds of meetings, was to paralyze
the administration and on this basis secure
Central intervention to overthrow the Min-
istry.

Fifth, open backing and active support was
given to the agitation by the all-India leaders
of the Congress. Significant in this respect
was the role played by Mr. Nehru. Here was
the open declaration by members of his own
party in Kerala that they wanted to “para-
lyze” the administration of the State. Judging
by the attitude Mr. Nehru had taken in rela-
tion to the peaceful struggles of the workers
and peasants in other States for modest

demands, one would expect him to denounce
the anti-Government struggle in Kerala. Not
merely did he not do so, but in his very
first statement on the Kerala crisis, made on
June 3, nine days before the launching of the
struggle, he spoke of a “considerable upsurge
among large masses of people against the

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

’

Government of Kerala,” which in his opinion
was “due to a feeling of distrust against
the Government that has grown in the course
of the past many months.” From time to
time, confronted with sharp criticism even
from circles which generally support him,
Nehru made half-hearted criticism of the
tactics of his party functionaries in Kerala.
But these were always hedged in with reser-
vations which rendered them worse than
useless and actually encouraged the lawless-
ness. As for most of the top leaders of the
Congress, including Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Neh-
ru’s daughter and the Congress President,
their attitude was one of consistent hostility
towards the Kerala Government and full
support for the opposition.

Armed with this support and plentifully
supplied with funds* by vested interests in
Kerala and by big business from other States
as well as by the Catholic Church, working
up religious hysteria, caste sentiments and
communal passions, the Vimochan Samar
Samiti (Liberation Struggle Committee) of
Kerala, in close collaboration with the Con-
gress, Praja-Socialist Party and Muslim
League, on June 12 launched their “direct
action” against the Kerala Government. Man-
agers of many private schools closed educa-
tional institutions. Attempts were made to
close others by intimidation, physical assault
on teachers and students and even burning
of schools. Attempts were made to disrupt
the State transport system by damaging buses
and boats and by attacking passengers. In
the name of peaceful picketing, organized
raids were made on Government offices.
Several police stations were attacked. Land-
lords threatened to refrain from sowing crops
and to bring about a state of starvation.
Banks declared they would not subscribe to
the development loans to be floated by the
Government. Big industrialists tried to ham-
per production. Terror was unloosed against
citizens who supported the Government and
resented hooligan tactics.

Simultaneously efforts were made to incite
the officials against the legally-constituted
Government; Congress leaders hinted that
officials who obeyed the orders of the Gov-
ernment would be punished when it was
dismissed and the Congress returned to power.

In this way the reactionaries sought to
disrupt the economy of the State. sabotage
education, prevent normal life and create a

*According to the leader of the “liberation struggle’, Mr.
Mannathu Padmanabhan, five million rupees were spent.

st

3S-

ul

nd

ent.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 39

state of chaos. In order to overthrow the
constitutionally elected Government, violence
and lawlessness were let loose, with the open
connivance and support of the Congress lead-
ership which never tires of preaching the
virtues of non-violence, the necessity to
adhere to constitutional and neaceful methods
and the sanctity of the verdict of the ballot
box.

All in all, this was a striking manifestation
of the length to which the party of the bour-
geoisie and landlords is ready to go and of
their scant respect for their own principles
whenever their class interests are threatened.
Mr. Nehru would do well to ponder over the
significance of the Kerala crisis and the
behavior of his party as well as his own
behavior in this crisis. If he does so, he will
refrain from repeating his pet thesis that
Marxism is out-moded.

In these circumstances the Kerala Govern-
ment behaved with admirable restraint and
moderation. It used the minimum possible
force. Throughout the violent opnosition. the
Preventive Detention Act, which proclaims
that a citizen can be arrested and detained
without trial by mere executive order, never
was invoked, nor were meetings and proces-
sions banned —a striking contrast to what
Congress Governments do. The Kerala Gov-
ernment, expressing its readiness at all stages
to negotiate with the opposition, made re-
peated overtures. All these had no effect
because the opposition did not want a settle-
ment and counted on the support of the Cen-
tral Government. Successive statements by
members of the Central Cabinet. above all,
by Prime Minister Nehru, strengthened their
hopes and created the impression that Central
intervention against the Kerala Government
would be forthcoming in the event of the
law and order situation becoming more acute.

No one should think, however, that the
opposition forces in Kerala had an easy
success. They had openly bragged that they
would win “within a week.” Actually they
failed to paralyze the Government, and Cen-
tral intervention came full fifty days after the
struggle had been launched. This was due
to two factors—mass support for the Govern-
ment inside the State and the powerful rally
of Indian democratic opinion in defense of
Kerala.

The vast maiority of the working class,
agricultural laborers and toiling peasantry
stood firmly by the Government. The onposi-
tion call for a general strike on June 29 was
a miserable fiasco. A big majority of teachers

opposed the struggle. So did important sec-
tions of the intelligentsia. Vast meetings took
place in Kerala opposing the school-closure
movement, condemning the hooligan tactics
of the opposition and calling upon the Con-
gress and the PSP to break with avowedly
communal* and caste elements.

The campaign in defense of the Kerala
Government developed into one of the most
powerful campaigns that India has ever
known. Workers, peasants, teachers, students
and office clerks demonstrated in tens of
thousands all over the country. Among them
were many supporters of the Congress and
the PSP. The majority of the leading news-
papers which have never been known to
harbor friendly feelings towards the Com
munist Party, nevertheless, criticized Con-
gress tactics in Kerala as fraught with grave
danger to parliamentary democracy. Criticism
was voiced by such eminent public men as
Mr. Patanjali Shastri, the ex-Chief Justice
of the Supreme Court of India, Mr. C. Raja-
gopalachari, former Governor-General of
India, Mr. Gadgil, the Governor of Punjab,
and others.

Backed by growing mass support inside
the State and helped by democratic opinion
all over the country, the Kerala Government
frustrated the efforts of those who tried to
paralyze the administration of the State. Each
of their moves for six weeks ended in fiasco.
Though successful in bringing much suffering
upon the people of Kerala and damaging
public property, they were unable to achieve
their objective of paralyzing the Government.
Nor did they succeed, despite all the efforts,
in provoking clashes between their support-
ers and the masses supporting the Govern-
ment, which could give the Center the pretext
for intervention.

The struggle, instead of ending in short
and swift victory, was dragging on—doomed
to inevitable defeat. Then towards the end of
July the leaders of the struggle, in collabora-
tion with several members of the Congress
leadership, worked out their new plan. They
announced that a “massive” march would
be staged on Trivandrum, the State capital.
Twenty-five thousand volunteers would “be-
siege” the Government Secretariat, determin-
ed not to quit until they had overthrown the
Government. The purpose was to provoke
clashes on a vast scale and enact a bloodbath
in the capital.

*Communalists uphold the division of society into close
religious communities—Ed.

40

Within four days of the announcement of
the plan, the Union Cabinet met and decided
to dismiss the Kerala Ministry, dissolve the
State Legislature and impose President’s rule
on Kerala. No reason was assigned for this
drastic action. The sequence of events leaves
one in no doubt that the crisis was manu-
factured, in order to justify intervention.*

The National Council of the Communist
Party of India which met at Trivandrum on
July 15 and 16, called for meetings and
demonstrations all over the country on August
3, in defense of Kerala. After the dismissal
of the Government, August 3 became a day
of countrywide protest against Central inter-
vention. At least thirty thousand people
marched to the Parliament in Delhi, condemn-
ing the Central Government’s intervention,
denouncing it as an attack on the working
people and on democracy and praising the
achievements of the Kerala Ministry. It was
a demonstration the like of which the capital
city had seldom seen.

The demonstrations were not confined to
Delhi. Tens of thousands, including peasants
who had walked all the way from villages,
took part in them in every place, especiaily
in every State capital. But, what took place
in Calcutta, the biggest city in India, was
something unprecedented. An avalanche of
humanity descended on the streets, forming
a mighty stream stretching over five miles.
This was the biggest procession in the city’s
history since Independence—about one hun-
dred thousand took part in it. Earlier, a rallv
of two hundred thousand had been held,
addressed by Jyoti Basu, the Secretary of
the West Bengal State Committee of the
Communist Party of India, and Indrajit Gupta,
the working class leader.

Commenting on the demonstration in Cal-
cutta, the Statesman, organ of British big
business in India and an outspoken opponent
of the Communist Party, wrote on August
4: “If number is any index, the procession
organized by the Communist Party in Cal-
cutta was a massive demonstration of the
Party’s strength.”

*Even before the struggle began we had anticipated the
course that events might take. On June 3, after discussion
in a joint meeting of the Kerala State Committee Secretariat

“~%, Neg ee Executive Committee Secretariat, I wrote:

‘he Congress Party in the State, with the blessing of the
Pe nd High Command, supplied by funds subscribed by
British planters, landlords and other vested interests and
in alliance with PSP, RSP and dark forces of reaction, is
out to create disturbances and deliberately bring about a
situation of chaos and lawlessness. The Central Government,
led by the same Congress Party, they hope, will step in to

dismiss the Ministry for its alleged failure to put down law-
What happened, therefore, did not surprise us

lessness.”

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

The participants in all these protest demon-
strations which included a large number of
women, were workers, peasants, office em-
ployees, teachers, students and others. The
indignation of the masses, therefore, which
found expression in these protest actions was
not confined to followers of the Communist
Party. It affected the membership of all par-
ties, including the Congress Party.

This was seen even in the meeting of the
Congress Parliamentary Party which took
place on August 2, to hear Prime Minister
Nehru’s explanation as to why the Central
Government had intervened. ‘Seldom has the
Congress Parliamentary Party been in such
a highly critical mood,” said the New Delhi
despatch of the Hindu, the most influential
paper in South India and a supporter of the
Congress, “as this afternoon when Prime
Minister Nehru addressed it.”” Summing up
the speeches made by a number of Congress
members of the Indian Parliament, the des-
patch commented: “The Prime Minister has
never faced such a critical party meeting as
he did today.”

It can be stated without fear of contradic-
tion that no single issue during the last
twelve years dominated the Indian scene as
Kerala did in the past three months. Never
was condemnation of the Congress so out-
spoken. Never did Prime Minister Nehru and
his Government come in for such criticism
at the hands of their own supporters. And
never did the people of India, the workers,
the peasants, the working intelligentsia and
democratic-minded people in general rally so
powerfully as in the defense of Kerala.

The Kerala Government has been removed,
but it has been a magnificent battle, a battle
which has raised the prestige of the Com-
munst Party, which has exposed the demo-
cratic and constitutional pretensions of the
ruling classes and inflicted a political-moral
defeat on the Congress. It has taught the
people of India a lesson they will never forget.

The dismissal of the Kerala Government
was an outrageous attack, in violation of the
spirit of the Constitution, on the masses, on
their democratic right to elect the Govern-
ment of their own choice and the right of
that Government to carry out its policies and
measures consistent with the provisions of
the Constitution. It was also an act of grave
provocation against the Communist Party of
India and the democratic forces.

Some members of the Central Government
had hoped that, blinded by anger, the Com-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 41

munist Party would resort to “retaliatory”
actions of a violent nature—thereby giving
the pretext for repression. In this, they were
disappointed. The mighty but peaceful and
disciplined protest actions that took place
all over the country on August 3, were un-
marred by a single violent incident.

Central intervention in Kerala was followed
by numerous acts of violence by the “libera-
tion movement” volunteers, Congressmen and
others against the offices of the Communist
Party, Party cadres and people generally.
Attempts were made to terrorize agricultural
workers and evict them from their home-
steads. These seemed to be part of a plan
to keep up the tension and prevent free and
fair elections at the end of President’s rule.
Also, efforts are being made by the reaction-
aries to bring pressure to modify the progres-
sive measures introduced by the Communist-
led Government.

Undaunted by what has happened, with
its mass base intact and its ranks more firmly
united than ever before, the Kerala State
Committee of the Communist Party issued
a stirring call to the people to defend the
gains of the past 28 months. The Communist
Party demands that the Agrarian Relations
Bill, passed by the State’s Legislature in June,
immediately receive Presidential assent and
be implemented. The other measures enacted
by the Ministry such as the Education Act
should not be modified. The Party has appeal-
ed to all sections in Kerala, irrespective of
the attitude taken by them during the
struggle, to ensure that the gains of the past
28 months are upheld, for they serve the
interests of all except a handful of vested
interests. In the days ahead the Party in
Kerala will make strenuous efforts to see that
the Catholic masses, many of whom were
misled by their so-called leaders, become con-
scious of where their real interests lie.

In the grave and difficult conditions, our
Party in Kerala, preparing for the forthcoming
elections, is confident that once again the
masses will demonstrate their support for
the Party and the progressive forces with
which it is allied.

The developments in Kerala were not an
isolated event. They are the product of cer-
tain trends that have developed in Indian
politics in recent years.

In 1947, when British power was forced
to quit India, the Indian people hoped that
now that freedom had been won after many
years of struggle, suffering and sacrifice, rapid
and effective steps would be taken to liqui-

date the heritages of imperialism, to elimi-
nate the grip of British capital on our econo-

_ my, to carry out basic agrarian reforms, to

democratize the state apparatus and to ensure
ali-sided national advance. And they ardently
believed that the Congress Party which had
led the battle for freedom, which enjoyed a
position of unrivalled prestige and authority
and had now come to wield power, would
lead them to carry out these new tasks—
thus completing the national democratic
revolution.

Since then many things have happened.
The democratic movement has gone forward
achieving many new successes. India has
won a proud and honored place in the comity
of nations by her independent foreign policy
and her role in defense of peace. Certain
sectors of national economy have grown,
substantially aided by the agreements which
India has made with the USSR and other
socialist countries. There have been other
changes too. But it cannot be denied even
by the staunchest supporters of the present
Indian Government that, by and large, the
hopes and aspirations of the masses remain
unfulfilled.

British capital still occupies a strong posi-
tion in our economy. Despite a certain amount
of curbing of landlordism, the condition of
the vast mass of peasantry has registered
practically no improvement and even the
half-hearted agrarian reforms have been and
are being sabotaged. Unemployment has as-
sumed alarming proportions. Despite official
claims of “record” food production this year,
food prices have risen steeply. Recently, the
rate of industrial growth has slowed down.
Tax burdens on the common people have
grown intolerable. The contrast between the
wealth of a handful of multi-millionaire mono-
polists on one hand and the vast majority
of the people on the other has grown more
glaring than ever.

Utilizing the difficulties which our economy
is facing and emboldened by the concessions
made to them, extreme reactionaries who
have powerful allies inside the Congress and
in the Government have launched a furious
assault against the policy of extending the
state sector of economy, against even the
limited agrarian reforms, against state trad-
ing in food grains and so on. Ardent advocates
of “free enterprise,” and of ‘aid’ from Ameri-
ca, these elements, among whom are to be
found the biggest monopolists of India, have
been systematically striving to sabotage eco-
nomic relations with the socialist states and

42

even demanding a “modification” of India’s
foreign policy.

A-phenomenon of grave significance is that
in vital respects, the Indian Government itself
is succumbing to the pressure of these ex-
treme reactionary elements.

Inevitably, therefore, though the Congress
remains immensely powerful, there has been
growing disillusionment of the masses with
the Congress. The Congress is torn with
dissension and internal conflict. Had there
been another powerful party of the bourgeoi-
sie and landlords or a strong social-democratic
party, the mass discontent could have been
directed into “safe” channels. Such. however,
is not the situation in India. Except the
Congress, there is no other strong bourgeois
party yet in the country. As for the Praja-
Socialist Party which at one time hoped to
become an “alternative” to the Congress, it
has lost heavily in prestige and influence—
thanks to its utterly reactionary and eanti-
national stand on foreign policy, its sabotage
of mass struggle and its opposition to a united
front with the Communist Party.

The party which is winning more and more
support among the people in this situation
is the Communist Party of India. This is the
most important development in Indian politics
since the attainment of freedom — growing
realization by the people of the need for
basic reforms, growth of mass struggles in
volume and intensity and the emergence ot
the Communist Party of India as the spear-
head of the democratic movement. No wonder,
therefore, that the extreme reactionaries ana
their allies, who want to thwart national
progress and democratic advance are raising
the bankrupt banner of anti-communism.

The victory of the Communist Party in the
Kerala elections and the formation of a Com-
munist-led government there, itself a product
of this entire process, carried it forward stu!
further. It gave the masses new courage ana
confidence. It created consternation among
the imperialists, big British capitalists, Indian
monopolists, landlords. Also it gave rise to
fear among many of the top leaders of the
Congress, especially its Right wing, that even
the limited democratic rights which the Indian
people enjoy under the present Constitution
may create serious difficulties for them.

Hence, the paradoxical snectacle that India
witnessed recently—the resort by the Con-
gress Party which rules the country to violent
and illegal tactics in order to overthrow a
legally-formed government in one State of

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

India, subversion of the Indian Constitution
by the Government of India itself, the use
of the special powers of the President for a
purpose which was not visualized when the
Constitution was formed. In this sense, the
Kerala crisis has a deeper import. It is a
manifestation of the crisis which bourgeois
democracy is facing in India. It confronts
Parliamentary institutions in our country with
a grave peril. It gives a shattering blow to
the illusion entertained by many people that
the ruling circles in India, reared in so-called
Gandhian traditions, will necessarily respect
the verdict of the ballot box and that the
path ahead is a path of smooth and continu-
ous advance—free from crisis and sharp con-
flicts.

The attack on the Kerala Government was
spearheaded by the forces of extreme reaction
—those who want to destroy what the demo-
cratic movement has achieved during the last
twelve years and take the country backward.
There can be no doubt that emboldened by
the successes they have won, they will inten-
sify their attack on the toiling masses, on
democratic rights and civil liberties, on
parliamentary institutions and even try to
reverse our foreign policy. Ahead of us lies
a critical period, a period of acute conflicts
and sharp changes which would demand ut-
most vigilance.

At the same time, the conclusion would
be entirely defeatist and unwarranted that
the triumph of reaction is inevitable. Far
from it. The Kerala crisis has revealed not
merely the length to which certain bourgeois
circles would go in their attack on the people
but also the tremendous volume of democratic
opinion that exists in our country, the forces
that are there which, if mobilized and united,
can defeat reaction and frustrate its designs.

We have already referred, in this articte,
to the powerful democratic upsurge which
grew in the whole country in oprosition to
Congress tactics and in defense of the Kerala
Government, an upsurge which prevented
Central intervention for full fifty days. Hence
the Communist Party has reiterated its deci-
sion, adopted at the Amritsar session of its
Congress sixteen months ago, that it will
continue its policy. of peaceful methods,
defend parliamentary institutions and demo-
cratic rights with all its might, and strive
to unite for this purpose all the patriotic
and progressive forces in the country, includ-
ing the vast number of democrats in the
Congress. Our Party is confident that the

[TT wa WTS ODS OD —“‘é< sll

a SS SS E.On ETL ON

wee a eS SS Oo CUM

= we

— a == So aa eS.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 43

Indian people who have achieved impressive
successes in their struggle till now, will be
able to defeat the new plans of reaction and -

take the road that will eventually lead to
socialism.
Delhi, August 1959

JOURNALS OF FRATERNAL PARTIES

Rinascita
Luglio - agosto aa

(REVIEW)

History of the Communist International—
Some Problems

Palmiro Togliatti

NDER this title Rinascita, in Nos. 7-8 (July-

August, 1959), published an article by Pal-
miro Togliatti on the Fortieth Anniversary of the
founding of the Communist International. The
Comintern’s nearly 25-year activity coincided with
one of the most tense and tragic periods in Eu-
ropean and world history.

Never had history developed so rapidly as it did
during these years. The revolutionary ferment
after the October Revolution and the end of the
First World War, in contrast to anything that had
taken place before, was felt not only by a res-
tricted group of countries but, in various forms
and in varying degree, all over the world. Des-
pite differing situations, differing economic con-
ditions, political systems, class relationships, na-
tional interests and traditions, the aims of the
struggle were strikingly similar. Some of them
stand out: complete liberation from capitalist ex-
ploitation, abolition of colonial and _ tyrannical
regimes, freedom for all peoples and the road to
socialism and peace. The conquest of power, the
building of the first socialist state and its triumph-
ant advance made the world more united and
brought the peoples closer together in their strug-
gle for the day when world unity would rest upon
a single solid foundation and universal fraternal
co-operation.

The significance of the Communist International
is to be sought in the fact that from first to last
it was in the center of this grandiose process of
remaking the world. What is more, it was one of
the main driving forces and guiding elements of
this process. Throughout its activities there was
not an «vent of any importance on which the lead-
ing bodies of the International or its national sec-

tions failed to adopt a definite stand; and this
stand was arrived at not with the cold indifference
of the pseudo-scientist, but with the keen mind
of the scientific Marxist, with the zeal of the poli-
tical leader and fighter who knows that his opinion,
always a spur to action, can influence and change
the course of events.

It is not surprising that the ruling capitalist
classes and all their groupings and lackeys were
consumed with hatred of the Communist Interna-
tional. And when that gang of blood-thirsty brigands
who dreamed of plundering the world and des-
troying every vestige of freedom and civilization
was organized it took the name of “‘Anti-Comintern
Pact.” And it was precisely the Communist In-
ternational which, at its last Congress, charted
the principles of the broad political strategy the
purpose of which was to destroy this butcher gang
and to open before humanity a new prospect of
political and social progress.

Serious historical works about the Comintern
are few, says Togliatti, and even these are either
extremely general in character, or they describe
the rise and development of the Communist move-
ment in the different countries or at various stages.
Yet there is a great need for books that would
weave into a single pattern everything associated
with the International.

Nor should we close our eyes to the fact that
the position of the Comintern was not always ab-
solutely correct and in keeping with the actual
situation. Neither can it be denied that along with
a thorough and exact Marxist analysis and defini-
tion of the development of the crisis of capital-
ism, which set in together with the First World
War, and along with correct revolutionary work

44

to build and consolidate Communist parties in
conditions which at times were extremely difficult,
there were also vacillations justly deserving of
criticism, positions which subsequently had to be
abandoned because they did not correspond to all
the requirements of social and political reality;
there was a slowing down of tempo and there were
propaganda exaggerations. And lastly, let us add
that the criticism made at the 20th Congress of
the CPSU of Stalin’s work, although Stalin was
never directly responsible for the activity of the
Communist International, undoubtedly necessitates
a careful reappraisal (both in the sense of judg-
ments on individuals and leading groups of some
of the Communist parties and in the sense of
ascertaining the correctness and timeliness of
certain decisions and campaigns) of events and
the activities of individuals in order to elucidate
them correctly.

* *

The second part of the article begins with an
analysis of the conditions in which the Communist
International arose. Emphasis is laid on the fact
that it was before and not after the triumph of
the October Revolution and the seizure of power
by the Russian working class and the Bolshevik
Party that Lenin proclaimed the need unhesitat-
ingly to sever political and organizational connec-
tions with the Social-Democratic parties of the
Second International and to establish a new inter-
national association of the working people. This is
an extremely important point, no so much for the
purpose of dealing a blow at those who claim that
the Communist International was merely an ‘“‘in-
strument”’ of the Soviet state, as to determine what
historic and political considerations led Lenin to
insist on the creation of a new international orga-
nization.

Lenin was already waging an open and relentless
struggle against the opportunism of the leaders of
the old Social-Democratic parties before the out-
break of World War I, and an entire wing of the
working-class movement participated in this strug-
gle, although it did not always act consistently or
from well-defined Marxist positions. When the war
broke out the opportunists at the head of the
Second International parties went beyond all bounds
in their shameful activities. This fact alone justified
a final rupture with the opportunists and called for
a new international revolutionary organization. But
Lenin did not confine himself to stating this fact. In
examining the causes that led to the betrayal, he
analyzed the sources of opportunism in the working-
class movement, which were to be sought in the
very structure of capitalist society, in the changes
which had taken place in it, in the rise of a labor
aristocracy and in the particular form of solidarity
established between this aristocracy and the ruling

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

classes to the detriment of the working masses and
the principles of socialism. “‘. . . Opportunism is
not an accidental thing, not a sin, not a slip, not
the treachery of individual persons, but the social
product of a whole historical epoch.’’*

Opportunists who have become social-chauvinists
and traitors are the product of the objective pro-
cess peculiar to a definite phase of capitalism. In
this Leninist definition of opportunism we find a
profound historical substantiation for the new and
necessary development of the working-class move-
ment. But in my view, writes Togliatti, that is not
the most important thing in Lenin’s analysis. Most
important and decisive is the objective statement
of fact that world war opens up a new stage in
history and that this new stage confronts the
working class and its parties with completely new
tasks. The capitalist world is so organized, con-
tinues Togliatti, that the growing disproportion be-
tween oppressed and oppressors creates the pre-
requisites for an inevitable revolutionary explo-
sion. And this explosion, thanks to the objective
conditions engendering it, will, when it occurs,
place on the agenda not only separate questions of
an economic and political order, but problems con-
nected with the ‘‘very existence of capitalist so-
ciety,’”’ that is, problems of the socialist revolution.

The guiding principle underlying the founding of
the Comintern and its activity has its source in the
scientifically established truth that capitalism has
reached the last stage of its development, and that
the historical period in which we are living is the
period of the collapse of imperialism and the revo-
lutionary triumph of socialism. Hence the impera-
tive. need for an uncompromising struggle to ex-
tirpate opportunism in the working-class movement,
for a complete break with the old parties of the
Second International, for a revolutionary party—
the vanguard of the working class—equipped with
Marxist-Leninist theory. Hence, in conformity with
Marxist principles, there arises the need for
strategy and tactics in keeping with the general
character of the historical period and with particu-
lar situations. And, lastly, because the revolution
had taken place in Russia and resulted in the vic-
tory of the working class, it followed that the hub
of the entire revolutionary working-class movement
of necessity shifted away from Western Europe to
the country in which the proletarian revolution had
triumphed, which had a Party capable of leading it
to victory, a Party destined to undertake and re-
solve the gigantic task of building a socialist econ-
omy and a socialist society.

After the founding of the Communist Inter-
national Lenin, on the basis of the experience of
the October Revolution, developed and deepened
the foregoing propositions, which were adopted by

*V. I. Lenin, Collapse of the Second International.

ee Pe EE SS Oe

~Ss eaaee CUD

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 45

the best and most active part of the working class
and became the property of thousands of cham-
pions of socialism, and of millions of people who
believed that the future lay. with socialism.

After the first Congress of the Communist Inter-
national Lenin indicated the place of the new Inter-
national in history:

“The First International laid the foundation of
the proletarian, international struggle for socialism.

“The Second international marked the epoch in
which the soil was prepared for a broad, mass,
widespread movement in a number of countries.

“The Third International gathered the fruits of
the work of the Second International, purged it of
its opportunist, social-chauvinist, bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois dross, and began to effect the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat.’’*

At the Second Congress of the Comintern, Lenin
stressed that the heart of the matter lay in the
“economic relations of imperialism.’’ These rela-
tions had led to war, and the war had destroyed
the former equilibrium. All the basic principles
underlying strategy and tactics—particularly those
concerning the need to fight for power in the de-
veloped capitalist countries, and the potential allies
of the proletariat in this struggle—and the thesis
that in the anti-imperialist struggle the efforts of
the proletarian masses in the West fuse with those
of the oppressed colonial peoples fighting for inde-
pendence, are linked with the principled stand de-
riving from Marxist teaching and confirmed by the
experience of history.

This stand was, and remains, correct. The march
of events has confirmed it, providing new and ir-
refutable proof of its soundness. If we compare the
experience of the Communist movement, inspired
and guided by the Communist International, with
that of other movements and particularly with the
experience of the Social-Democratic parties, the
comparison will undoubtedly be in favor of the
ideas upheld by us in following the great behests
of Lenin. Today no one can deny that the period
since the First World War has been marked by the
rise of socialism and the decline and fall of capital-
ism. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the power
of the working class and its peasant ally, has be-
come the decisive historical force, extending its
range of action, resolving its problems and confi-
dently solving new ones. The general crisis of
capitalism, passing through stages of cyclical boom,
depression and crisis, has deepened. The colonial
system is distintegrating. The sphere of imperialist
domination has shrunk and is continuing to con-
tract. And in the changing world of our day not
one of the old Social-Democratic parties has suc-
ceeded in bringing the working class of its country

V. I. Lenin, The Third International and Its Place in
History.

anywhere near to the role of the leading class, to
the conquest of power. Quite the reverse. All, or

. nearly all of them have rushed in to save the cazi-

talist system from the proletarian revolution. The
Social Democrats have affirmed that they were
forced to do this to save democracy. But the mo-
ment the danger of revolution had passed, the
bourgeois classes brought fascism to power, and
fascism plunged the world into another devastating
war. Almost the same thing is being repeated to-
day, the Social-Democratic parties are still active
supporters of the capitalist system and opponents
of every revolutionary movement and of socialism
--of the socialism now established over one-third
of the globe and marching confidently to its goal.

There can be no doubt on this point: history has
proved that the complete break with opportunism,
the formation of new revolutionary parties and the
founding of the Communist International, and its
work, were fully justified. In keeping with Lenin’s
appeals and behests, everything was done to meet
the historical situation and to provide the inter-
national proletariat and the people with the leader
they needed. The grand perspective which the Com-
munist International placed before itself was per-
fectly sound; the principles which inspired its work
were correct; on the basis of these principles the
Comintern elaborated a revolutionary strategy of
world-wide significance; it acted in accordance with
these principles, and it summoned the working
people to action in the most diverse situations.

* * *

The revolutionary ferment resulting from the
First World War spread to nearly all the countries
of Europe. But the revolutionary movement was not
successful, despite the sweep of the mass move-
ment and the selflessness with which the minority
organized in the Communist parties, or those rallied
around them, fought. The working class failed to
seize power (a task posed by history and for the
solution of which all the objective conditions were
to hand). Had this goal been attained in at least
one or two of the main capitalist countries, periods
of sharp struggle would undoubtedly have follow-
ed, but then mankind would not have known the
terrible crisis of 1929, fascism or the Second World
War.

Togliatti shows how wrong are those who main-
tain that the Communists made a mistake when
they advanced the aim of seizing power, that by
so doing they estranged part of the masses, and,
what is more, the most advanced part, from the
section which continued to follow the old Social-
Democratic parties; that in consequence these
parties have not been able to come to power every-
where and carry out far-reaching reforms. Nothing
could be more false. First, in no European country
whatever did the Social-Democratic leaders in the

46 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

reformist wing of the working-class movement put
forward this kind of program for democratic re-
generation. The ultra-reactionary regimes were
overthrown under the impact of the first onslaught
of the masses, and important democratic reforms
were won under mass pressure. When, subsequent-
ly, the Social-Democratic leaders came to power
and exercised it alone, they never hesitated to use
their rule to prevent the growth of the mass move-
ment and to restore the old bourgeois order. And
where these movements were not halted but con-
tinued to seek radical changes, the Social-Democra-
tic leadership entered into an alliance with the most
reactionary section of the bourgeoisie in order to
crush the popular movement by force of arms.

The sections of the Communist International—
some of which had been formed at times of acute
revolutionary crisis—did not, on the whole, rise to
the occasion, and this was the key problem during
the first period of the existence of the International.
Victory in the revolution they were working for,
namely, seizure of power in some of the big Wes-
tern countries, was everywhere closely linked with
the time factor, that is to say, with the rapidity at
which the movement developed and, particularly,
with the need quickly to form revolutionary van-
guards capable of winning decisive influence among
the workers and the people as a whole without
loss of time. This had to be done before the bour-
geois classes and their administrative and coercive
apparatus recovered from the acute crisis which
had somewhat cramped their activities, that is, it
had to be done during the revolutionary struggle.
But it was here that lapses and mistakes made
themselves felt. This end was not achieved. It turn-
ed out to be much easier to break with the Social-
Democratic leadership than to get rid of “social
democratism.”” Many of those who loudly proclaim-
ed their affiliation to the new International in
practice adhered to their old social-democratic
views on basic questions of the revolutionary move-
ment such, for example, as the alliance between
the working class and the middle sections in town
and countryside.

From this Togliatti draws the conclusion: the
victory of the October Revolution in 1917 was
achieved because there was a well-organized van-
guard—the Bolshevik Party—because in the course
of a twenty-year struggle against all manifestations
of opportunism this vanguard, under Lenin’s leader-
ship, had worked out a revolutionary strategy and
tactics based not only on Marxist principles, but
wholly in keeping with the economic, political and
social conditions in Russia! There was not a single
party or political group in any other European
country which could have possessed such richness
of principle, such scientific knowledge not only of
Marxist teaching but also of the conditions of their
country; that had behind it the store of revolution-

ary experience which brought the Russian Com-
munists to victory in October 1917. The founders
and leaders of the Communist International, with
Lenin at their head, understood perfectly that this
was the gap that had to be made good.

*

* *

An analysis of Lenin’s activities during the
period of the imperialist war and the founding of
the Communist International demonstrates that,
simultaneously with waging irreconcilable struggle
for a complete break with social-democratic op-
portunism, Lenin worked to unite the revolutionary
forces on a platform of correct Marxist principles,
and, while ridding themselves of opportunism, to
avoid the danger of falling into incorrect and bar-
ren Leftism. Togliatti cites a number of examples
from Lenin’s activities in this direction, and
stresses that he never failed to draw attention to
the different conditions in each country and, hence,
to the different political aims. Speaking on the
Italian question at the Third Congress of the Com-
munist International Lenin severely criticized the
policy of Serrati who had preferred 14,000 reform-
ists to 58,000 Communists; he said: ‘We never
wanted Serrati to imitate the Russian revolution
in Italy. This would have been stupid. We are suf-
ficiently wise and flexible to avoid such stupidity.”
Thus on questions of theory Lenin would admit of
no interpretation contrary to Marxist principles
being placed upon his statements. It is noteworthy
that in his report to the Second Congress of the
Comintern Lenin, having defined and drawn in an
incomparable and forceful synthesis a picture of the
crisis which capitalism was then experiencing, has-
tened to add that it would be wrong to try to prove
there was absolutely no way out of the crisis. ‘‘The
bourgeoisie is conducting itself like a desperate
robber who has lost his head. It is committing
blunder after blunder, aggraavting the situation
and hastening its own downfall. . . . But one can-
not ‘prove’ that there is absolutely no possibility
for the bourgeoisie to lull this or that minority of
the exploited, by means of some concession; that
it cannot suppress this or that movement or crush
an uprising of some section of the oppressed and
exploited.”* From this Lenin concluded that only
struggle by the revolutionary parties could “‘prove”’
that here was no longer any other way out for the
bourgeoisie.

It cannot be said that the Communist movement
as a whole was guided during those years by these
clear-cut Marxist principles. The specific conditions
in the particular countries were underrated and in-
adequately studied; there was a tendency to con-
fine onself to the formal and superficial wish to
“do what had been done in Russia,” without under-

*V. I. Lenin, The International Situation and the Funda-
mental Tasks of the Communist International.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 47

standing what this could and should signify for
each country. The rupture with opportunism was

accompanied by sectarianism, and this isolated the

Communists, often small numerically, from the
organized and unorganized workers. There were,
moreover, those who made a theory of this isola-
tion affirming that we should wait until the ‘‘masses
come to us;”’ there were those who advocated the
“theory of the offensive’? according to which the
small minority, even though isolated from the
masses, could victoriously storm the bastions of
power. There was at the time a lack of under-
standing of national demands, and the view was
held that, with the onset of the revolutionary
period, democratic demands were no longer of any
importance. That the ability of the bourgeois classes
to recover their strength and to maneuver had been
underrated is obvious from the fact, let us say, that
in Italy (1922), Bulgaria (1923) and Poland (1926)
the Communist parties were caught unawares and
found themselves confronted with the fascist of-
fensive because they failed at first to realize its
real scope and significance. Considerable ideologi-
cal and political spadework and effort to educate
and reorganize the leading cadres were needed in
order to make the movement, rallied under the
banner of the Communist International, a genuinely
Communist movement. This work was undertaken
by the early Comintern congresses, under the
leadership of Lenin, and his contribution was de-
cisive.

In speaking about the work of forming the Com-
munist parties one usually has in mind the 21
conditions of affiliation to the Communist Inter-
national, adopted at its Second Congress. At that
time these conditions were of the utmost importance
in defining the type of Party to be counterposed
to the Social-Democratic parties, but, says Togliat-
ti, in my view they were not the decisive factor.
Of greatest significance were the strategy and tac-
tics of the Communist parties worked out at the
first three congresses. Decisive in the first place,
in addition to the Theses on the National Question,
were Lenin’s “‘Left-Wing’’ Communism, an Infantile
Disorder, and his speech on the Tactics of the
Communist International at the Third Congress.

Comrade Togliatti devotes several pages to
“Left-Wing’’ Communism, an Infantile Disorder
which elaborates the Party’s tactics and methods of
work. In those days the attention of the working
class of the world was focused on the Bolshevik
Party—the organizer of the victorious revolution—
renowned for the discipline and valor of its mem-
bers. Everybody wanted to imbibe the qualities of
this party which was regarded as an international
model. Lenin agreed with this, and recognized the
international importance of what the Bolsheviks
had accomplished, but he immediately added that
“it would be a very great mistake to exaggerate

this truth and to apply it to more than some of
the fundamental features of our revolution.” He
acknowledged further that ‘‘strictest discipline’
was one of the chief conditions for victory, and
stated that “far from enough thought has been
given to the question . . . under what conditions it
is possible.’’ There will be no discipline if the
vanguard is unable “‘to link itself with, to keep in
close touch with, and, to a certain degree, if you
like, merge with the broadest masses of the toilers
—primarily with the proletarians, but also with the
non-proletarian toiling masses.”’ Discipline, more-
over, depends upon the correctness of the political
leadership, on the condition ‘“‘that the broadest
masses become convinced of this correctness by
their own experience.’’ Without these conditions
“attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat
and end in phrasemongering and grimacing.’’ But
these conditions are created only by prolonged
effort, in the practical activity of a truly mass and
a truly revolutionary movement.

Many pages of Lenin’s work—those, for instance,
which explain what had to be done by the Com-
munists in order to vanquish the more powerful
enemy (only by exerting the utmost effort .. .
taking advantage of every, even the smallest, ‘‘rift’’
among the enemies, every, even the smallest, op-
portunity of gaining a mass ally, even though this
ally be temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable
and conditional, etc.)—are devoted to the principles
now generally accepted throughout the working-
class movement.

After the Second Congress and on the basis of
the work done by Lenin in the International, the
need to settle accounts with the Left deviation be-
came imperative. This was done at the Third Con-
gress where Lenin, taking part in the debate, elab-
orated the Theses on ‘‘Left-Wing Communism,” de-
feated the advocates of the ‘‘theory’” of the of-
fensive, insisted on the need for the Communists
to ‘‘win over the majority,” and secured the in-
corporation of this principle into the Theses on
Tactics. Thus a correct line was worked out for
forming and organizing the Communist parties as
mass parties on the one hand, and, on the other,
the united front policy in relation to the working-
class and Social-Democratic organizations, which
found expression in the call for united action and
negotiations between both Internationals, was sub-
stantiated.

At first this policy met with strong opposition
even among the Communists. There were sharp
controversies and conflicting views: some sections
rejected the new tactics, others accepted them con-
ditionally and with reservations which in point of
fact nullified them. It was claimed that the united
front could be built only on a trade union basis,
not on the basis of political organizations and acti-
vities; a scholastic distinction was made between

48 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

unity at the top and unity at rank-and-file level or
both from top and bottom simultaneously. The iirst
demand was tantamount to rejecting the unity
tactics and even contained something in the nature
of a threat to trade union unity; as regards the
various ways of attaining unity, these are condi-
tional and always lose their meaning when people
desire and really achieve unity, for it is not easy
to make a clear distinction between the leaders
and the rank and file in a well-organized move-
ment: there is a constant interdependence and
interaction between them.

The decision to combine the united front slogan
(developing it) with the slogan of a workers’ gov-
ernment, was both correct and interesting. This can
be done where there is unity between the Com-
munists and Social Democrats. Here we have an
attempt to find the ways and means by which the
working class can come to power in accordance
with the specific situation and without repeating
the Soviet experience to the letter. The point was
warmly debated and the conclusion was drawn that
the slogan should be understood as a synonym for
the dictatorship of the proletariat; but this was
tantamount to depriving it of all practical signifi-
cance. Beginning with 1934, however, the search-
ing necessitated by this formula was renewed and
far more significant results were achieved.

On November 13, 1922, Lenin, now very ill, ad-
dressed the Fourth Congress of the Communist
International—the last which he attended. His
speech, in which the problems of the international
working-class movement were only touched upon,
contained certain critcisms. He mentioned the
resolution adopted at the Third Congress on the
organizational structure of the Communist parties
and their methods of work, and severely criticized
it as being ‘‘too Russian.’’ He added that by adopt-
ing this resolution ‘‘we ourselves have blocked our
own advance,”’ although the content of the resolu-
tion was correct. “‘All that has been said in the
resolution has remained a dead letter’ and unless
we realize this ‘‘we shall make no progress.”

Not enough thought was given to these words;
they were regarded as being the usual and super-
ficial criticism of a document that had not been
drawn up with sufficient clarity for the “foreign
comrades.”’ Lenin undoubtedly considered that the
foreign comrades should take over a “part of the
Russian experience” and, upon doing so, they
should be capable of developing the Communist
movement in all countries in keeping with the con-
ditions obtaining in each country.

* * *

The next section of Togliatti’s article begins with
a characterization of the Comintern’s activities
after Lenin’s death. New people came, the methods
of leadership and work changed; the analysis, pos-

sibly, was less profound, the conclusions less cer-
tain; there were sharp differences, too, among the
leadership, mainly in connection with the struggle
waged by the Soviet Communists against the op-
position groupings. Not infrequently these differ-
ences were accompanied by factional struggle in
individual Communist parties. But those who con-
centrate on these episodes and see nothing but
these should be reminded that the struggle was
both necessary and inevitable, and that the work
begun by Lenin was successfully continued by the
Communist International.

The campaign for the ‘‘Bolshevization” of the
Communist parties, aimed at helping the foreign
comrades to assimilate ‘“‘part of the Russian ex-
perience,” acquired a much greater significance.
In many countries it helped to further the forma-
tion of the Communist parties and the molding of
leading cadres, to remove from these parties the
individuals and groups who refused to master the
deep principles of Marxism-Leninism, refused to
submit to discipline or to adopt the methods of
work typical of a revolutionary party. Thus the
aims which it was necessary to pursue in the dif-
ferent sections of the International varied with
local conditions and traditions, but the need ‘‘to
work among the masses” was emphasized every-
where. During this campaign some of the Commu-
nist parties began to acquire the character of truly
mass parties, and this was essential in the new
situation then taking shape.

In the period between 1924 and 1930-31 the center
of gravity shifted. The German section of the
Comintern continued to be the strongest, and the
greatest responsibility rested on it; the sections in
France and Spain likewise began to acquire
greater weight, while in other countries the parties
were persecuted and had to go underground. A real
leap forward, one which changed the situation and
opened a broad new perspective, was made in
Asia, where the Communist Party of China, founded
in 1921 and at first very weak, had grown in the
space of a few years into an important political
force and was now in the center of the political life
of the country. The Communist International dis-
cussed at length the problems of this Party and
helped to specify its strategy and tactics. But the
Chinese Party, more quickly than the other parties,
began to advance independently along the Marxist-
Leninist path, studying the situation in the country,
adapting its activities to this situation and boldly
rectifying its mistakes. In a short time it had ac-
quired the experience and militancy which enabled
it after the Second World War to win victory, take
power and put China on the road to socialism.

But the most important factor of this period was
the change that took place in the objective situa-
tion. This was correctly noted at the Fifth Con-
gress of the Comintern which, it is true, made the

> ae a ae tie See Oe a ee ds a ee lke a

~ TF mrs AS

go fF eff Lf

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 49

proviso that a new and rapid revolutionary de-
velopment was possible and, later, at the Sixth
Congress, which worked out the thesis of the ‘‘three
periods’’—the period of acute postwar crisis, the
period of relative stabilization and the period of a
further aggravation of the contradictions of capital-
ism and a new upsurge of the mass movement.
In the main this division was correct, and it should
be borne in mind in any ‘“‘periodization’’ of the
history of the Comintern. The 1929 economic crisis
strikingly confirmed the forecast made in 1928
that the conditions of capitalism would deteriorate.
Here, by way of criticism, it should be said that
not always and not in all Communist parties was
the thesis on the “third period’’ correctly under-
stood as a simple premise for an investigation
of the definite changes then setting in everywhere;
sometimes it was regarded as something cut and
dried and was substituted for direct research.
Internationally the new upsurge of the popular
movement was entirely different in character from
that which set in immediately after World War I.
This, too, was not correctly understood at first. The
international situation was complicated. Fascism,
the new aggressive force which had grown out of
imperialism, had added to the antagonisms, render-
ing them more acute and foreshadowing armed con-
flicts. Fascism confronted the working-class and
the popular movement with new problems, with the
task of defending the democratic system and
achieving unity in the struggle against the common
enemy.

Can one say that the attitude of the Comintern
and its activity at the time of the turn in world
politics were absolutely correct and timely or that
it failed to realize in good time the importance of
some of the new facts and, as a result, was un-
able to adopt a correct political line?

In my view, writes Togliatti, there were mis-
takes and tardiness and these were manifested
chiefly in a belated and inadequate appraisal of
the fascist danger and, consequently, in an in-
correct posing of the problems of unity and a wrong
attitude towards the Social-Democratic parties.

Togliatti holds that the gravest error was made
in defining Social Democracy as social fascism,
and that the political consequences of this were
likewise erroneous. It is true that the Social-
Democratic leaders resisted the mass revolutionary
movement, crushed it by force of arms, in the
same way as did the fascists. And it is equally
true that an analogy can be drawn between the
ideology of the reformists—the advocates of class
collaboration—and some of the ideological tenets of
the fascists. But the social nature of these two
movements was profoundly different. Behind the
fascists stood the diehard capitalist reactionaries,
while the reformist leaders were linked with essen-
tially different groups that had not as yet broken

with certain democratic traditions and bourgeois
pacifism. The mass base of the two movements was
different: in many countries the organizations led
by the reformists consisted largely of working
people; the fascists ruthlessly fought these organi-
zations and sought to destroy them.

But it was most important to realize in good
time what the outcome of the fascist offensive
would be. The prospect was one of an all-out
attack on democratic institutions and liberties. To
speak about social fascism signified, in essence,
that the reformist leaders and Social Democracy
as such pursued exactly the same aim. But this
was contrary to truth, for what was bound to
occur, was that part, and quite a significant part,
of the Social Democrats came to the defense of
the democratic institutions.

The term “‘social fascism’’ expressed the profound
resentment felt by that part of the working-class
movement in many European countries, particular-
ly in Germany, which had been thrown back by
the betrayal, treachery and ruthlessness of the
Social-Democratic leaders. This resentment was
justified, and many of these leaders were deserv-
ing of worse epithets. But politically it was a mis-
take, and, regrettably, a widespread one. It was
a mistake not to have distinguished between dif-
ferent things and, what was worse, to have further-
ed the rapprochement of the forces which, in the
interests of the working-class and communist move-
ment, ought to have been divided, kept apart and
counterposed to each other. And, lastly, inside
Social Democracy the drawing of a line between
the opponents of unity, the real advocates of
fascism (De Man, Deat, etc.), and those who were
beginning to realize the need for unity and resolute
anti-fascist struggle, was rendered difficult.

Obviously to get unity of action with the social
democratic masses and their organizations on the
basis of this theory was far from being an easy
matter; where it occurred it was sporadic and
had no impact on the situation as a whole; and
worst of all, the dogmatism and sectarianism
against which Comrade Dimitrov waged an open
struggle at the Seventh Congress of the Communist
International were widespread in many Communist
parties. After the Sixth Congress the struggle inside
the Communist parties was spearheaded almost
exclusively ‘‘against any tendency tqwards an op-
portunist adaptation to the conditions of capitalist
stabilization and against any infection with refor-
mist and legalist illusions” (Dimitrov).

Sectarianism, which was not effectively combated
and the spread of which was furthered by the defi-
nition of Social Democracy as social-fascism, be-
came a “‘deep-rooted vice”’ (Dimitrov). It had to be
extirpated at all costs if a broad and effective pro-
letarian front was to be built capable of blocking

50 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

the path to the growing threat of a fascist offen-
sive and the danger of a second world war which
was then looming up.

In my view, Togliatti continues, defining com-
munist policy as a policy of “‘class against class”
was also essentially erroneous and the source of
dangerous sectarian distortions. Our policy is the
policy of a working class fighting for democracy
and socialism, but the strength of the Communist
Party consists precisely in its ability to isolate
the most reactionary groups of the bourgeoisie by
means of a broad and flexible system of alliances,
by ascertaining common views and interests with
other forces, by neutralization, etc.

Rectification of this mistake was dictated by the
course of events, first and foremost by the tragic
example of Hiiler’s advent to power in Germany.
Hitler came to power with the support of the
masses of electors whom the Social-Democratic
leaders had estranged by their reactionary policy,
but who could not take part in a united struggle
in defense of democracy because of the yawning
split in the working-class movement and the ab-
sence of successful united actions. Events in Ger-
many profoundly alarmed the working-class move-
ment; the masses realized the imperative need
for a united anti-fascist movement. The Commun-
ist International and its parties were at their
posts. They adopted a correct attitude, criticized
the Social-Democratic parties, stressed the respon-
sibility of the latter for the advent of fascism to
power. Above all they worked for unity of action
in the countries threatened by fascism or already
enslaved by it. The obstacles in the way of carrying
out this task were overcome without any great
difficulty, and at the new and last stage of its
existence the Communist International was a truly
worldwide force guiding and at times directly
leading the mighty united movement which in one
way or another embraced all countries.

* * *

When in 1935 our Seventh and last Congress as-
sembled, the balance of forces in the working-class
movement had changed radically. This demon-
strated the degree to which the ability of the Com-
munist parties to act in keeping with the situation
had grown. The Seventh Congress was significant
because it posed and resolved the task of general-
izing the experience of united action already ac-
quired. The Congress placed this experience upon
a solid principled foundation and, on this basis,
formulated an internationally important strategic
line of development.

And today, recalling the events which preceded
the outbreak of the Second World War, and above
all the perfidy of the bourgeois rulers who, not
without the connivance of the Social Democrats,
sought, without a twinge of conscience, to incite

the fascist aggressors against the Soviet Union,
recalling the confusion and dangers of the first
years of the war, and recalling how at last a way
out was found in the unity of the democratic and
anti-fascist forces, and hearing this unity praised
or cursed from different sides because it brought
victory, it must be acknowledged that, if the
strategy of unity was the means that made it pos-
sible to destroy fascist barbarism, this strategy
was worked out and placed before the world by
the Communist International at its Seventh Con-
gress.

Undoubtedly the prerequisites for this are to be
sought in the preceding activity of the International
and not only in all that concerns the united front.
Dimitrov himself regarded as a precedent the call
made in the past, given the existence of a united
front, for a workers’ or a worker-peasant govern-
ment. In the same way the transition was now
being made from this broad unity of action to
demands for a proletarian united-front government
or for an anti-fascist popular front. But now this
demand was based on the proof that fascism was
not simply the substitution of one government for
another, but a change in the form of rule, that is,
the turning of bourgeois democracy into terrorist
dictatorship.

The Communists, far from ignoring this distinc-
tion, came to the defense of the democratic sys-
tem, and “‘took into their hands the banner of de-
mocracy.” This opened the way to co-operation
and alliances, on the condition however that the
Social Democrats and capitalist politicians were
not lumped together, that a distinction was made
between them and action taken accordingly. This,
then, was at once a tactical and a strategic line.
In the new situation, which Lenin could not have
foreseen, the principles of revolutionary policy
which he had worked out and defined were im-
plemented on a broad plane, with boldness of
aim and perspective, and without overlooking any
of the fundamentals of our doctrine. On the con-
trary, the facts confirmed that these fundamentals
were absolutely correct, for they alone, and not
the opportunist ravings of the Social Democrats or
the confusion of the bourgeois democrats or the
stunts of the anarchists, enabled the Communists
to offer to all who were ready to combat fascism
and to avert war a platform of unity of action
which in the crucible of the grim struggle demon-
strated how necessary and effective it was.

An objective study of the decisions of the
Seventh Congress thoroughly exposes the slander-
ers who depict the communist movement as one
that from beginning to end is associated with stereo-
typed attitudes, that is incapable of understanding
the new in life and of rejecting obsolete formulas.
The Congress, in examining the many vital ques-
tions, took into account the new reality and this

a. 2 =| &- & ss S he lel ee lel ll le

pot FS

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 51

enabled it unhesitatingly to change some of the
former theses of the Communists. As regards the
problem of war, as distinct from the attitude during
the 1914-18 war, the slogan of struggle for peace
and in defense of peace was approved and substan-
tiated as being both correct and necessary; second-
ly, the possibility of averting a new imperialist
war, provided a combination of forces was estab-
lished that would force the aggressor to retreat,
was pointed out for the first time. In both instances
cognizance was taken of the fact that a new, im-
pressive and real force had appeared in the con-
stellation of world powers—the Soviet Union with
its socialist industry, collective farms and all its
other forces.

As regards the question of government and the
state, the participation of the Communists in a
government which is not a dictatorship of the
proletariat, was substantiated and recognized as
correct and desirable. There was nothing in com-
mon here with the old collaboration practised by
the Social Democrats with the object of holding
back the movement of the masses and preventing
revolution. The Communists were eager to partici-
pate in government bodies in order to destroy
fascism and save democracy. But they openly de-
clared that the democratic order could not be
preserved or developed unless it acquired a new
content which would be imparted to it by the par-
ticipation of the masses and by political and eco-
nomic reforms, reforms that would uproot reaction
and fascism. Thus it was that the concept of a
democracy of a new type began to take shape, and
no one can rebuke the Communists, fighting as
they were for socialism, for thinking in terms of
a democratic development along these lines.

Seeing the sterility and cowardice of the political
thinking of the Social Democrats, who, much
against their will, agreed to anti-fascist unity, and
then at the first opportunity broke their vows of
fidelity to the united front and who, upon encounter-
ing the upheaval which shook the old political and
social foundations, had nothing to offer but the
doctrine of the need to govern on behalf of the
bourgeoisie in order, subsequently, to cede power
to it; seeing this the Communist International bold-
ly developed the teaching on state power, opened
before the mass democratic movement the per-
spective of successful advance and linked the
struggle against fascism and for peace with the
need to change the structure of the capitalist world.
The political activities of the Communists in the
postwar years were already implicit in this atti-
tude.

It is easy to understand why the policy of the
Seventh Congress exerted such a tremendous influ-
ence on all continents, and why it enabled the
communist movement to make a big leap forward
similar to the advance immediately after 1919. This

policy was the guiding force which the working
class, the democratic masses and the peoples need-
ed at the time. But this time the leap forward was
made by parties which, thanks to nearly 20 years of
experience, had acquired internal cohesion and kin-
ship, had mastered the principles of Marxism-
Leninism, ‘‘digested’’ a good part of the Russian
experience, rid themselves of much “ballast” in
the shape of the opportunists, factionalists and
careerists, and which to a considerable extent had
become “‘Bolshevized.’”” The way had been paved
by two decades of discussion, theoretical elabora-
tion, propaganda, political action and _ internal
struggle. In Spain and France, China and America
the fruits of this labor were being garnered. And
it is interesting to note that during this period the
internal differences and the factional wrangling,
which in the past had been frequent and serious,
disappeared almost entirely, and in the main the
democratic life of the Communist parties proceed-
ed normally. As is always the case, the correct
political line strengthened the organizations and
improved the situation in them. All the parties
made special efforts to associate themselves closely
with the life in their respective countries, in order
to take into account and utilize the progressive
traditions of the popular movement, overcome na-
tional nihilism and acquire the true sense of nation-
hood without which the working class cannot hope
for leadership of the working masses and the coun-
try. This was a period of preparation for solving
the tasks which arose later, during the Second
World War, when the Communist parties, leading
the struggle against fascism, proved their mettle
as the finest representatives of the nation and em-
bodied in themselves the characteristic features of a
national party, features which none can dispute and
of which no one can deprive them.

The Seventh Congress of the Communist Inter-
national opened up a new period in the relations
between central leading bodies and individual Com-
munist parties. I adhere to the view, Togliatti
writes, that the impossibility of exercising from a
single center effective leadership of the work in
both near and distant countries had become obvious
earlier and, what is more, at crucial moments.
Operative leadership never wholly corresponded to
the fluid situation: it was either not understood,
came too late, or could not reach those who were
leading the struggle. At the Seventh Congress and
afterwards it became clear that, when the mass
movement—approximately from 1934 onwards—was
beginning to acquire an unprecedented sweep, it
was impossible, or simply absurd to think that real
leadership could be exercised from a single center.
The Communist parties had to become a political
factor in their countries by virtue of their own
efforts and, consequently, had to be able to act
independently and in keeping with developments,

52 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

with turns, successes and failures. And so it was
that, in a sense, the documents of the Seventh
Corigress contained the decision to dissolve the
International, a decision which was adopted in
1943, when it was publicly stated that the previous
form of central organization no longer conformed
to the situation and the level of development of
the movement itself.

The fact that in 1943 a decision of this kind could
be taken shows how extremely important was the
work that had been done and the long and arduous
path traversed, at times with zigzags. Those who
are surprised that after the Second World War the
Communist parties in a few years became the rul-
ing force in so many countries—beginning with
China and Poland and ending with the Danube and
the Balkan countries and the German Democratic
Republic—should glance back for a moment at the
work done by the Communists, if only in the
struggle against fascism before and during the war.
The place we now occupy in the world at the cost
of incredible sacrifice and heroism was won thanks
to a correct political line and the struggle for the
happiness of mankind. What is more, the place that
rightly belongs to us is far more important; and
that which has been taken from us we must and
will regain.

The Communist movement has become what it is
today as a result of the objective development of
the contradictions of capitalism, of the fact that
in 1917 the chain of imperialism was broken for the
first time, and of the subsequent tragic events link-

ed with the general crisis of the capitalist system.
But objective conditions create only the prerequi-
sites for a movement which becomes firmly estab-
lished, disciplined and consolidated, advances and
wins thanks only to the conscious activities of an
organized vanguard. The Communist International
was such a vanguard and the present situation in
the world confirms that it succeeded in accom-
plishing its task, the task set by Lenin. It may
seem strange to some that the considerable influ-
ence wielded among the masses in some countries
in the past has now been lost, or nearly so. Further
study is needed in order to establish the reasons
for this; what cannot be denied is that this dis-
parity in the development of individual countries
has always existed, and while it can be explained
in part by shortcomings in orientation and in the
work, the basic reason points to the objective
changes which first of all we should be able to
understand.

The main point is that today, under communist
leadership, the broad masses, hundreds of millions
of people, are in motion, and that the Communists,
although working and fighting in different condi-
tions, different countries and continents, are united
by revolutionary teaching, invincible international
solidarity, the identity of the noble aims of their
struggle and by the discipline common to the
working-class vanguard. As an organization the
Communist International no longer exists, but its
cause lives on.

el il ie

th
re
wc
ser

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 53

Forthcoming Congress of the Hungarian
Socialist Workers’ Party

HE Central Committee of the Hungarian

Socialist Workers’ Party has issued a set of
documents highlighting the points to be discussed
at the Party Congress which will open on Novem-
ber 30. This will be the Seventh Congress—this
figures emphasizes the continuity of the revolu-
tionary tradition in the Hungarian working-class
movement and the fact that the Socialist Workers’
Party is the heir to the Communist Party and to
the Working People’s Party which emerged from
the fusing of the Communist and Social-Democratic
parties.

The previous Congress was held in 1954. This
means that the Central Committee’s report will
cover a long period, including the difficult days of
the counter-revolutionary putsch. Naturally, not
only the immediate causes of the counter-revolu-
tion but also matters relating to the preceding
years will be discussed. The documents, therefore,
sum up the important lessons of the 14 years since
the Liberation, and analyze the outstanding events
in the life of the Party.

Notwithstanding the grave errors committed
during 1949-56, the years of people’s democratic de-
velopment were years of remarkable democratic
and socialist gains made under the leadership of
the Party. But beginning with 1949 the Rakosi cult
developed in the Party. Vested with power Rakosi,
who had had a record of fine service on behalf of
the people, together with his immediate associates
began to drift away from the Leninist standards
of Party life. Turning a blind eve to law, and dis-
torting the line of the Party, they gravely injured
the cause of socialism. After 1953, the Imre Nagy
revisionist group, cashing in on the Party’s ex-
posure of its mistakes, proclaimed the slos2n of
righting the wrongs. In an attempt to break up
the Party the Nagy group sided with the class
enemy and resorted to outright treachery.

In December 1956 the Central Committee gave
a clear explanation of the reasons for the counter-
revolution. This explanation is included in the
theses for the Seventh Congress: ‘‘. . . The counter-
revolution was generated by four closely inter-
woven factors—the mistakes made by the previous
sectarian leadership of the Working People’s Party,

the treachery of the Imre Nagy revisionist group,
the internal counter-revolutionary forces of the
bourgeoisie and, above all, international imperial-
ism.”

The lessons of suppressing the counter-revolution
and the experience acquired in subsequent years
of socialist consolidation pose a series of questions
which are of paramount importance for the success-
ful building of socialism, above all the question of
the leading role of the Party. Under the difficult
conditions of the all-out revisionist attacks the
Party upheld the undeniable Marxist truth that
unless the Party plays the leading role there can
be no socialist construction. But to uphold this
principle was not enough, it was likewise necessary
thoroughly to analyze how this role should be
carried out. Although the membership is now less
than it was before the counter-revolution, the lead-
ing role of the Party has become more effective.
The staunch and reliable members rallied around
the Party during the struggle against the counter-
revolution, while the careerists and other hostile
elements were ejected. Gone too are several hun-
dred thousand working people who for one reason
or another showed indecision and lack of confi-
dence, but who still support the aims of the Party.
And, though their sympathy and support are ap-
preciated, the Party nevertheless has become
ideologically stronger as a result of shedding them.
The forthcoming Congress will discuss what should
be done to enhance the leading role of the Party,
how the reduction in membership has affected its
methods of work; new forms of work; the relation-
ship between the Party and the mass organizations,
and how to enhance the role of these organizations.

The past few years have amply confirmed the
significance of political and organizational unity
and, above all, of ideological unity. At one time
this unity was disrupted by the dogmatic and
revisionist trends then current in the Party. The
rebuilding of the Party and the suppression of the
counter-revolution were part and parcel of the
struggle against these two trends. Both the
counter-revolution and the struggle waged in the
subsequent years demonstrated that the main
danger came from revisionism which, as we all

54 WORLD MARKXIST REVIEW

know, has taken final shape in the views of the
leaders of the Yugoslav Communist League. The
struggle against deviations is still an important
ideological task—sectarianism and revisionism still
have roots in the Party. Erroneous trends are
tenacious, they hang on and flare up at times.
Consequently the Party regards ideological strug-
gle on the two fronts as a task of both the prepa-
ratory work for and of the Congress itself.

The defeat of the counter-revolution and the
progress made in recent years—progress greater
than might have been expected—testify to the sig-
nificance of one of the most important features of
the Party—faith in the masses and in their loyalty
to socialism. No matter what the difficulties were,
the Party frankly and openly appealed to the
people; it did so even when it had to oppose the
incorrect demands put forward by those who
were misled. The contact between the Party and
the masses is characterized by growing confidence
and sincerity. This is expressed in the greater ini-
tiative displayed by the masses, and in the trust
reposed by the Party in the non-Party people de-
voted to people’s democracy, who are encouraged
to perform all leading state and public functions
with the exception, of course, of Party functions.
Building socialism is not a matter for the Com-
munists alone, but of the community as a whole.
More and more people are taking part in public
life. The Patriotic Front movement, revitalized
under Party leadership, is forging ahead. Through
it, large masses of people are taking an active
part in the political life of the country.

The Party, for which frankness and mutual trust
is one of the principal guarantees of success now
and in the future, highly appreciates these de-
velopments. For this reason it devotes close at-
tention not only to preserving the gains, but to
further improving its relations with the masses.
These relations were harmed by sectarian errors
which, although they have been overcome for the
most part, still crop up from time to time. For
example, one consequence of the successes achiev-
ed by socialism both nationally and internationally,
was the development of complacency. The Party
resolutely combats this and similar manifestations.
Far from being satisfied with its achievements, it
attentively studies where and how the contact with
the masses has been consolidated, and how it can
improve its methods and style of work in order
to build up more confidence among the people.

The crushing of the counter-revolution and the
economic rehabilitation were major political vic-
tories. At the moment economic and cultural con-
struction are in the foreground and are acquiring
decisive significance. In addition to the report of
the Central Committee, the Congress will discuss
the directives for the second five-year plan. Aided
by the fraternal countries our people quickly made

good the damage caused by the enemy and are
successfully coping with the three-year plan (1958-
60). Fulfilment of this plan will clear the way for
resolving the important socio-economic problems of
the new five-year plan. Industrial output is at a
higher level than it was before the counter-
revolution; in agriculture the socialist sector in-
cludes half the cultivable land; by 1958, compared
with 1955, real incomes of factory and office work-
ers had risen 20 per cent. The structure of in-
dustry is more in line with the country’s poten-
tialities; management, too, has improved. These
developments will enable us, in the course of the
next five years (after 1960), to complete the foun-
dations of socialism and to accelerate the building
of socialist society. Slightly over a year remains
before the three-year plan schedule runs out. The
interval should be utilized most effectively, all the
more so because there is every possibility that we
shall considerably overfulfil the plan.

Work on the new five-year plan will not begin
before 1961, so that now only the general outlines
are being prepared. The draft directives envisage
a 65-70 per cent growth of industrial output (as
compared with 1958). Branches which do not re-
quire great expenditure of raw materials and elec-
tric power—for example, the chemical industry—
and which therefore are particularly important and
profitable, will develop at a faster rate. Labor pro-
ductivity is scheduled to rise by 37-40 per cent.
Whereas in the first five-year plan only one-third
of the growth of output was achieved by means of
greater labor productivity, the draft directives pro-
vide for a two-thirds increase by way of higher
output per worker and one-third by means of
greater employment. And since labor productivity
depends primarily on technology, the Party is
making technological progress the pivot of eco-
nomic activity. Much has been done in this re-
spect; centralized management and the incentives
have yielded fruit, but the unused reserves are
very great.

Capital investments will amount to at least 170-
175 billion forints, 50 per cent more than under
the first five-year plan. The greater part of these
funds will be used for technological progress, and
in the first place for renewing and extending the
aggregate machine-tool plant and for developing
new branches of industry. The accelerated growth
of the national economy and a steady rise in
the standard of living will necessitate more funds
being allocated from the national income for pro-
duction investments.

By 1965 agricultural output should increase 30-32
per cent compared with the average for the years
1954-58. At the same time the Party will work to
win the individual peasants for co-operation to
complete the socialist reconstruction of agricul-
ture. To do this, and to do it in a way that will

, ae a a a a ee a ae

(a on a on ee.) a |

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 55

ensure higher output, considerable investments
will be needed. Compared with 1958 the tractor
fleet will be doubled, and three times more ferti-
lizer will be used. The aim is to achieve higher
output primarily by developing the socialist sec-
tor. Hence attention is centered on increasing pro-
duction and on consolidating the socialist sector
which this year has shown a marked increase. This
will pave the way for a planned advance.

By 1965 real income per capita will rise by 26-29
per cent, and consumption by 40-45 per cent. The
standard of living of the less well-off will rise
more quickly than that of the other sections.
Much will be allocated for social and cultural
needs, particularly housing. A fifteen-year plan
has been drawn up for a final solution of the
housing problem. Some 250,000 flats will be built
in the next five years.

The Party insists on realistic and well-founded
plans, and the Central Committee maintains that
all conditions obtain for reaching and surpassing
the goals now being set.

One of the guarantees of fulfilment of the plans
is further improvement of economic management.
Economic policy since the counter-revolution has
been characterized by the desire to make manage-
ment more effective, to abolish excessive central-
ism and do away with bureaucracy. But some of
the old mistakes typical of the past still occur:
there are, for example, instances where the auton-
omy of local authorities has been underrated, to
say nothing of cases of bureaucracy. The Party is
taking steps to ensure that economic management
keeps abreast of the initiative and enthusiasm of
the masses, that everything hindering realization
of the correct policy is resolutely eliminated.

In cultural construction too we have imnressive
plans. Continuation of the cultural revolution is
an important condition for accelerated socialist
construction. The country has to its credit impor-
tant achievements in education, science, litera-
ture and the arts. Particularly gratifying is the
interest shown by teachers in Marxism-Leninism.

The intellectuals, who were ideologically most af-
fected by the counter-revoiution, work in what can
be described as a generally healthy atmosphere.
The unions of art and literary workers, including
the Writers’ Union, have been re-established. But
there are still weaknesses on the ideological and
cultural fronts. Quite an important section of the
intellectuals, including scientists and educational
workers, have not yet mastered Marxism-Leninism
and are exposed to the influence of bourgeois and
petty-bourgeois views. Progress is hampered by
the survivals of capitalist views, by the way of
thinking of the urban petty bourgeoisie and
peasants. Even among the more backward sec-
tions of the working class, petty-bourgeois ideol-
ogy, individualism and indifference to public in-
terests are encountered.

The Congress will discuss how to strengthen
Marxism-Leninism in all spheres of public life,
how more actively to combat bourgeois and petty-
bourgeois ideology.

Much more attention will be paid to public edu-
cation, to the preparation of a school reform and
its subsequent implementation, to improving trade
skills and the political knowledge of the workers.

Past experience obliges us to devote special
attention to proletarian internationalism. The Con-
gress will be held at a time when the socialist
countries are winning victories of worldwide im-
portance, when the Communist parties, after re-
pelling the revisionist onslaughts against the unity
of the socialist camp, have closed their ranks. The
experience of the Socialist Workers’ Party testifies
to the decisive importance of proletarian inter-
nationalism for each of the socialist countries and
to the harm which can be caused by revisionist
and nationalist views. The pre-Congress activity
and the discussion of the Congress materials show
that the Seventh Congress will reinforce the spirit
of proletarian internationalism among the Hun-
garian Communists, and facilitate still closer rela-
tions with the fraternal parties.

56 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

The People of Portugal Step Up the Struggle

HE policy of the Salazar dictatorship is result-

ing in growing impoverishment for the people.
The numbers of jobless and those working short
time are growing notwithstanding the emigration.
Factories are being closed; production in the min-
ing industry declined 20 per cent in the past vear.
Many small and medium trading enterprises are
being closed. Agricultural output shrank by 10 per
cent in the past year. About six thousand landlords
own half the land, while well-nigh a million reos-
ants are landless. More and more small owners
are going bankrupt.

Relying for support on the home and foreign
monopolies, primarily American, Salazar has open-
ed the doors of the country and of the Portuguese
colonies to them. The establishment of land, naval
ad air commands in the colonies and the despatch
of fresh military contingents to them have only
served to aggravate the situation.

Popular discontent is assuming more active
forms. Fishermen in Matozinhos, Povoa do Var-
zim, Afurada, Murtosa and Vila do Conde fought
a seventy-day strike. Almost every day thousands
of strikers and their wives marched in demonstra-
tions, warmly supported by the workers of the
canning industry, by shop-keepers and the people
of the northern coast. The strike was a splendid
example of staunchness and unity.

Some 2,000 dockers, 4,500 fishermen and 2,900
transport workers and office employees in Oporto
won wage increases after a prolonged struggle.
The strike movement is being joined by miners in
Aljustrel and S. Domingos; metal workers in
Lisbon, Santaren, Braga and Viana de Castelo;
textile workers in Oporto, Minho, Covilhao and
Tortosendo; by building trades workers, railway-
men, bakers, workers of the chemical, ceramics
and cork industries, fishermen in the Algarve Prov-
ince, and by agricultural laborers in Alpiarca and
Alentejo.

Intellectuals are fighting for abolition of the
censorship, for the solution of their specific prob-
lems, and for the democratization of education and
justice. Students, who have established a National
Students’ Movement, are calling for educational
reform, reduction of fees, freedom of association
and academic freedom for the universities.

Small and middle landowners, manufacturers

and traders are protesting against the unbearable
tax burden. Discontent with Salazar’s anti-national
policy is growing in the armed forces. People are
indignant at government propaganda which lauds
Americo Tomas who became president as a result
of rigged elections. In an attempt to show that the

President enjoys popular sympathy, the authorities
timed his visit to Oporto, Braga, Aveiro and Vila
Franca de Xira to coincide with the big turn-outs
for local celebrations. To the embarrassment of
the organizers, the President’s arrival was greet-
ed with thousands of anti-Salazar manifestoes and
leaflets; slogans on the streets read: ‘‘Clear out!’’;
“Down with Americo Tomas, the Puppet Presi-
dent!”’; “Down with Salazar!”’; “Amnesty! Am-
nesty! Amnesty!.”

Last May eight thousand students, workers and
soldiers demonstrated in Castelo Branco; other
demonstrations took place in Couco, Nenavila and
Aviz, in Coimbra, Lisbon and Oporto; soldiers’
families protested in Beja against their relatives
being sent to the colonies in India; an artillery
regiment in Sacaven mutinied.

In Catholic circles, too, there is growing opposi-
tion, and Salazar’s supporters, such as the Arch-
bishop of Evora, are losing prestige among the
faithful. There is growing mistrust for the regime
also among national capitalists and bankers. Many
capitalists have refused to have anything to do
with government measures both at home and in
the colonies.

Recently the Central Committee of the Com-
munist Party called on the people, on all the anti-
Salazar forces, to organize peaceful action on a
national scale to force Salazar to go, and to win
democratic liberties.

The appeal called for a peaceful solution of the
country’s problems, for Salazar’s removal from
office without civil war. The possibility of a peace-
ful solution, the appeal continued, was pointed out
by the opposition candidates for the presidency;
it was expressed in statements put out by demo-
crats in Braga and Beira, and in a document sign-
ed by forty well-known personalities, including six
clergymen. Salazar and his clique, however, are
retaliating with reprisals, torture, shootings and
wholesale arrests; by proclaiming a state of siege
(as was the case in Sousel). They are bent on
provoking violence, in the course of which they
hope to crush the popular movement. ‘‘The fascist
resistance,’ reads the Communist appeal, ‘‘may
compel our people, anxious though they are to
achieve the necessary political change without a
profound upheaval, to use force which will end
once and for all the privileges of the ruling
clique.”’

Stressing that responsibility for the violence
rests solely with the ruling bourgeoisie, the Central
Committee explains what should be done in order
to resolve the political problem peacefully. The
main thing is ‘‘that all the anti-Salazar forces—

le

ities
Vila
outs
t of
reet-
and
ples
resi-
Am-

and
ther
and
ers’
ives
lery

OSi-
rch-

the
ime
any

do
| in

om-
nti-
na
win

the

1ce-
out
cy;
m0-
ign-
six
are
and
ege

hey
cist
nay

to
oe
2nd
ing

nce
ral
der
The

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 57

from Communists to Liberal Monarchists, all who
want a different government and a different re-
gime—should unite in a militant front for the at-

tainment of a single goal: the replacement of Sala- —

zar and the formation of a widely-representative
government capable of realizing the ideas express-
ed in the electoral programs of the opposition can-
didates. . . . Given broad unity the present cam-
paign against Salazar could develop rapidly, and a
powerful national action which would further sap
the regime, could be organized in a relatively short
period of time.”

The masses are beginning to realize the signifi-
cance of the unity of the anti-Salazar forces.
“Consequently the people are saying with every
justification: if the Communists, Socialists, Repub-
licans, Conservative Democrats, Liberal Monar-
chists and even many of those who have sup-
ported Salazar, want to change the destiny of
our country, if all of them fight in one way or
another against the Salazar dictatorship, then why
do they not combine in a united militant front?
Why do they not organize a broad national move-
ment for the overthrow of Salazar?

The document examines the reasons why the
desired unity is hampered. There are some who
wish to achieve political changes without the
people. Although they protest against violence and
lawlessness, their efforts are doomed to failure
because they represent exclusive groups who fear
the people. Others prefer a purely military solu-
tion and even terror. Salazar has always sup-
pressed such actions for they have never won the
support of the people. Still others fear that the
downfall of Salazar would be followed by a
“vacuum,” that the masses who have endured
thirty years of oppression and exploitation, would
wreak vengeance on their oppressors. Not every-
one is aware that Salazar has broken his links
with the national bourgeoisie, that he has become
a stooge of the monopolies.

However, the main obstacle to unity is the anti-
communism propagated by the ruling clique. Anti-
communism has always been the main instrument
used by the Salazar regime to stave off unity of
the opposition forces. The Communists are always
the first victims of repressions; it is against them
that the propaganda machine daily pours out its
slander. Even the ideological opponents of the
Communists are forced to admit their courage.
Dozens of clergymen, protesting against repres-
sions, recently addressed a letter to Salazar ad-
mitting that “. . . the courage and_ spiritual
staunchness with which the Communists, for the
sake of their ideal, endure violence and persecu-
tion arouse the admiration of the people... .”

The Central Committee states that in resorting
to anti-communism the government is trying to
turn the national bourgeoisie against the working

class, to convince them that the present regime
is the sole barrier to communism. ‘‘Adamantly re-
sisting any wage increase even when the employ-
ers agree to it, making the wage freeze the corner-
stone of its economic policy, the government is
trying might and main to sharpen the class anta-
gonism between the non-monopoly bourgeoisie
and the working people in town and countryside
in order to prevent their alliance in the national
struggle against the Salazar regime. . . .” The
Communist Party points out that sometimes this
propaganda has its effect, so much so that some
sections of the national bourgeoisie reject alliance
with the Communists.

The Party, refuting the slanders of government
propaganda, is doing all it can to develop legal
action for the demands of the working people; it
proclaims a policy of reconciliation and peaceful
settlement of the national problem. ‘‘At present all
the aspirations of the Communist Party are cen-
tered on the fight for democratic liberties, for
better conditions for the people and a system under
which they themselves could determine their des-
tiny. . . . All future revolutionary social changes
can take place only by the will of the people, a
will which the Communist Party has always re-
spected and will continue to respect.’’ The appeal
declares that: “The policy of the Portuguese
Communists does not pursue secret aims. Their
aim is to rally the people against Salazar, for
democracy and social progress.”

The Party is proposing national peaceful action
for the replacement of Salazar. ‘‘This action, the
date of which will be fixed jointly by all the demo-
cratic and anti-Salazar forces . . . should be the
immediate task of the entire opposition, and all
efforts should be directed towards its realiza-
tion.

“This action can assume various forms: peti-
tions, demonstrations outside the offices of the
local authorities, work stoppages, closing of shops
and schools, boycott of city transport and enter-
tainments, street demonstrations, meetings at the
point of production and in educational establish-
ments—all leading to a political strike which would
paralyze the actions of Salazar and his clique.”

The Party holds that in the event that this action,
in which the decisive role must be played by the
working class and all working people, is a success,
it can lead to the removal of Salazar and the estab-
lishment of a new, widely representative govern-
ment capable of restoring democratic liberties and
taking the country along the path of progress.
“The objective conditions obtain for this action,
all that is needed is that the democratic and anti-
Salazar forces negotiate immediately.”

The Communist Party’s call has met with an im-
pressive response. Hundreds of thousands of copies
of manifestoes, leaflets and placards are being

58

circulated all over the country, walls are covered
with inscriptions calling for the resignation of
Salazar. A sign of the growing unity is the fact
that Communists, Socialists, Republicans, Liberal

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

Monarchists, Catholics and even many of those
who recently supported Salazar, are acting jointly
against the repressions and calling for a general
amnesty for the political prisoners.

Overcoming Sectarian Errors

N THE past the Communists in Brazil adopted

a wrong attiitude towards the trade unions.
Since the unions were run by employers and the
Ministry of Labor and headed by their stooges,
the Communists abandoned all work in the unions.
An attempt to establish paraliel unions proved for
the most part ineffective. The outcome was that
the Communists found themselves cut off from the
working masses, and their influence declined.

Seven years ago this wrong approach was
changed and its consequences are being overcome.
In 1952 the Party adopted a resolution entitled
“Unity and Organization of the Working Class’
which trenchantly criticized the wrong attitude in
relation to the unions. The new approach was:
work in the unions, since these mass organizations,
irrespective of their leadership, unite the prole-
tariat whose interests the Communists are called
upon to defend.

Our object is to win new members for the
unions, to strengthen the working-class organiza-
tions and to achieve organizational unity through-
out the country. At the same time we support unity
achieved at lower levels in the fight for economic,
social and political demands. The Communists
work not only in each local trade union, but also
in the federations and confederations. They realize
the need to improve the leadership of the unions
by electing the best representatives of the working
class and thus turn the unions into instruments of
struggle of the working people. Having abandon-
ed their sectarianism, the Communists are work-
ing actively in the enterprises, campaigning for
unity at meetings, conferences and congresses,
seeking to unite Catholics, Trabalhistas* and non-
affiliated workers around their demands. Thanks
to these efforts, united action has been achieved
on the national plane; this unity is spreading from
the socio-economic front to the political field.
Communists are being elected to leading positions
in the unions and their prestige is growing.

A few examples of the work carried out by
Communists in Sao Paulo will illustrate the benefits
of their new approach. Their efforts to establish
closer contact between various categories of the
working people and to achieve a unified leader-
ship which would co-ordinate their actions, have

*Members and supporters of the Trabalhista (Workers’)

Party, the party of former President Getulio Vargas.

produced new forms of organization. Thus, there
appeared the Inter-Trade-Union-Unity Pact which
united over 125 unions representing most of the
trades in the state. The organization founded on
the basis of this Pact guides the economic, social
and political struggle. Workers all over the country
are closely following its work. Although the Pact
has not been officially recognized by the Ministry
of Labor, which opposed its formation, its pres-
tige is such that the government is often forced to
turn to it.

Many congresses have been held recently in Sao
Paolo—those of the metal and textile workers,
bank clerks and others. The Communists took part
in preparing these congresses.

Along with the work in leading trade union
bodies, we are paying more attention to work in the
enterprises. Here, however, we still have short-
comings, and we are aware that our success in
the leading bodies is not always the result of our
good work among the rank and file. But effective
united action can be achieved only with the active
support of thousands of working people.

The trade unions are now being attacked by
reactionary propaganda emanating from official
circles and from the U.S. Embassy and consulates,
and also from some religious groups. Despite the
variety of means employed, this propaganda has
only one aim—to befuddle the minds of the work-
ing people with anti-ccommunism. We on our part
are intensifying educational work. Some of the
unions have arranged classes on political economy,
and conferences and talks are being held on cur-
rent problems. In Sao Paolo there is an inter-
trade-union department of the social sciences
which studies socio-economic and political prob-
lems and supplies the unions with research ma-
terial for use in talks with workers. These talks
have proved very popular.

Now there is hardly an important political prob-
lem that does not attract the attention of the
working people and their unions which, as a rule,
exert a considerable influence on the march of
events. We could mention the struggle waged by
the working class against soaring prices, in de-
fense of the state monopoly of oil and rubber,
against imperialism, and in defense of democratic
liberties and peace. Indicative in this respect was
the first conference of the working people of Sao
Paolo which was convened to discuss the struggle

= a3

Ooo A OO +

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 59

against high prices and which provided a good
example of united action.

Soaring prices, which weigh heavily on the -

workers, are the source of growing alarm all over
the country. The unions decided to convene a
special conference on the prices issue. The Com-
munists wanted to impart a broad character to
the struggle, since high prices also affect land-
owners, cattle-breeders and shopkeepers. We ex-
plained the reasons for the high cost of living and
their close relationship with the policy imposed on
us by the North American trusts. This approach
gave the movement an anti-imperialist character.
In addition to the unions the conference was spon-
sored by shopkeepers, landowners, students and
representatives of various organizations. It was
warmly supported by many organizations which
co-operated in drawing up the rules and draft
resolutions. The conference, which lasted three
days, was attended by about a thousand dele-
gates representing six workers’ federations, 80
trade unions, 46 societies of different kinds, sports
clubs, two students’ associations, three women’s
and three peasants’ organizations, ten local legis-
latures, the Chamber of Commerce, a grain firm,
a shopkeepers’ association, the Catholic Church,
etc. The conference met with wide response all
over the country and contributed to establishing a
united front with anti-imperialist features.

Recent months have witnessed a big campaign
for higher wages, for social insurance legislation,

and the right to strike; against rising prices and
police interference in trade union affairs. In Rio
de Janeiro and Sao Paolo the struggle has been
joined by over a million working people. Their
actions are characterized by better organization
and new forms of struggle. Recently, for example,
the main unions in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo
formed a “permanent assembly”’ to fight for the
adoption of social insurance legislation.

The growing cohesion and awareness of the
working-class movement is the result of objective
factors which prompt the masses to take more
vigorous action in defense of their rights. But
we should not underestimate the work done by
political forces, above all by the Communists, who
are educating and organizing the working people.

The Communists are exerting every effort to get
rid of the last vestiges of sectarianism which in
the past caused so much harm. The Party recently
published a document entitled ‘“The Working-Class
Movement and Communist Policy in the Trade
Unions” which condemns the sectarian mistakes of
the past, sums up the first successes in the trade
unions, and outlines a broad program of action
among the masses. Thus equipped, the working
class, led by its vanguard, will be able to take
an active part in the general struggle for the solu-
tion of important national problems, for the eco-
nomic independence of the country and well-being
of its people.

Antonio SANTOS

Problems Encountered by Party Members
in a Factory

HESE remarks are about problems our rank

and file face in a middle-sized factory where
business machines are made, employing about
1,300 workers, 900 of whom are manual workers.
Here I shall not speak about the clerical and
office workers, for unfortunately they are quite
separate from the manual workers and do not
consider that they have the same problems. They,
lacking organized strength, remain weak and de-
pendent upon the employer.

Among the manual workers there is about 100
per cent membership of the trade unions, mostly
the Amalgamated Engineering Union. The political
background of most of these workers is based
upon acceptance of the British political system as
being the most democratic possible. They are ac-
customed to seeing government alternating between
the two large political parties, Labor and Conser-
vative, and do not see that this is an illusion of
democracy, that real power has always remained

in the hands of the capitalist class. This, together
with the relatively good standard of living enjoyed
since the end of the last war, with the absence of
large-scale unemployment, accounts for the fact
that the previous periods of mass unemployment
(such as in the 1930’s) are either not known or
are forgotten. Political news and developments
come to them from the radio, television and news-
papers, either owned or controlled by the capital-
ist class.

This does not mean that they support capitalism.
They know that the capitalist class has always ex-
ploited them and their fathers before them and
they wish to end this. The majority of them vote
for the Labor Party at election time. The Social-
Democratic leadership persuades them that in
order to end capitalist exploitation there is no
need to change the political system. The majority
of the trade union leadership in the factory are

60

Social Democratic in outlook, but there is no
Labor Party organization in the factory.

There is a small group of Communists in this
factory and, as a result of their work, also a core
of workers who understand and support the view-
point of the Communist Party on most questions.
These Party members are acknowledged as active
trade unionists utterly loyal to the working class.
About 20 per cent of the shop stewards are Com-
munists. The negotiating committee, which is
elected each year at a general meeting of shop
stewards and which negotiates directly with the
factory management, is made up of seven shop
stewards, two of whom are Communists.

How do the Communist Party members work in
this situation?

Their task is to counteract capitalist propaganda
and to explain to the workers the correct working-
class viewpoint. Here are examples illustrating
how we try to overcome the erroneous views cur-
rent among the workers.

A worker who reads the Daily Express, a
capitalist newspaper, spoke to his friend (a Com-
munist) complaining that the nationalized coal
industry had run at a loss that year, and so na-
tionalization must be a bad thing for the country.
“The capitalists would not have suffered a loss if
they had been running it,” he said.

The Communist showed him a copy of the Daily
Worker which contained the financial report of
the coal industry, and pointed out to him that the
industry had suffered a loss solely because many
thousands of pounds had been paid to the former
owners; had it not been for this, the industry
would have made profit. This worker also did not
know until the Communist told him, that before
the war when the coal industry was still privately
owned, it was in a critical condition because of
lack of proper machinery, and profit was made
only out of the inhuman conditions in which the
miners worked. After a few talks of this kind
this worker became a regular reader of the
Daily Worker.

Another worker, who reads the Daily Herald
(the so-called Labor paper owned by capitalist
publishers), was arguing with a Communist. He
said: ‘“‘Why do you Communists say that the last
Labor government was not a socialist government
— did it not take the coal industry away from
its private owners and make it a state industry
— isn’t that socialist?”

The Communist explained that the coal industry
was so obsolete that it was unprofitable for the
capitalists and the Labor government had to take
it over, otherwise crisis would have resulted.

This suited the former owners quite well, for the
Labor government was prepared to pay them
good compensation, which it did. Why did the

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

Conservative government not give the coal mines
back to the former owners when it came to power
afterwards? Also, why did the Labor government
not nationalize industries which were in a sound
condition and making good profits for the private
owners? In the end the worker agreed with the
Communist. These and similar questions make
the workers ponder over things which they are
daily fed by the capitalist press.

The most important help in our work is the
Daily Worker. An important aspect of our work
is selling this newspaper. In the morning when
papers are brought to the factory, each Party
member distributes a certain number of copies
among his work-mates before they start work.
The money is collected at the end of the week.
Gradually, the number of papers sold grows.
Now some 60 workers take a copy each day. In
addition to these an unknown number of workers
also see the paper in the course of a day. Each
month a sum of money averaging £5 is sent from
the factory to the paper’s Fighting Fund. The
money comes from weekly collections made for
that purpose, and donations are frequently made
by workers who do not read the paper but have
a general understanding and approval of what
it stands for.

When discussions occur, the Party comrades
follow them up by showing the workers copies
of the Daily Worker, and thus they raise their
interest in it. Our experiences in gaining readers
for our paper vary from person to person. Some
workers like it because it is a serious and de-
pendable paper and always has articles from
which they can learn. But also there are workers
who quite agree with Communist policy, but do
not want to read the Daily Worker because they
find it requires more studious reading, and they
class it as being ‘‘too dull.’’ It is certainly true that
were the Daily Worker a larger paper it could
carry a greater variety of articles, and un-
doubtedly we must try to make it as colorful as
possible, but we do not turn our backs on those
who do not take our paper, for they as a rule
reflect their years of experience of capitalist
newspapers. The capitalist newspapers aim at
directing the workers’ attention away from the
important items of news and for this purpose
print humorous and sensational articles, cartoons
and comic strips. Our general experience is that
when we help those who find it difficult to read
the Communist paper at first, and explain things
to them, most become permanent readers fairly
quickly. However, even those in the factory who
read the Daily Worker also continue to read a
capitalist paper of one sort or another.

After workmates have been reading the Daily
Worker for a time it is possible to have discus-

_— —_

a eS eS ew

RpPe@we + ** @Q™MN Fen @

eS
eS
‘ir
rs
ne
le-
ym
TS
do
ey
ey
1at
ald

un-

ose
ule
list

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 61

sions with them at a more advanced political
level. But we do not delude ourselves, for al-
though a man can agree with us on many issues
certain basic ideas can still remain.

One man who has been a reader of our paper
for a long time was asked to join the Party. He
said he would not. This was a surprise, but later
we realized how much was needed to overcome
the ideas instilled by capitalist propaganda. When
asked the reason why, he replied that he had a
fear that he might lose some of his freedom if
the Communist Party came to power. He said
that he felt there would be greater discipline in

the factories and he was not sure if he wished -

this. Also, one could fight against the imposition
of discipline by the capitalist class, but would
one, or could one, under communism? In short,
the worker was thinking about utterly different
conditions, in terms of capitalism to which he
is accustomed. It is not so easy for everyone
to realize what life will be like when the working
class comes to power. It was interesting to note
that this worker supported the Communist Party,
and when he was shown how illogical his stand-
point was, he agreed that this was so, but still
there was a feeling that we failed to convince
him.

Another comrade we failed to persuade at once
said he would not join the Party because he was
not prepared to give up his leisure time for
political work. “‘The people.” he said, “don’t
deserve it. They can see as well as I what ought
to be done but they are too selfish to do it. They
will stand aside and watch others do their
fighting for them.” After discussion this com-
rade agreed that his attitude was wrong, but we
realized that he was still not prepared to join
the Party.

We often feel that a person should not be
hurried, that time is needed for his political
growth. In these circumstances we appreciate the
support that this comrade gives the Party, main-
tain close and friendly relations and continue to
work patiently with him. :

Another man, also a strong supporter, said one
day: ‘“‘Why cannot the Communist Party change

. its name. People would listen to you more readily

then. As it is, they are so prejudiced, you only
have to mention communism and they close their
ears. If the Party changed its name, things
would be easier.’’ We explained to this comrade
that the press, radio, and television attacks us
because of our policy which is spearheaded
against capitalism and in defense of the workers
and whatever name we called ourselves, they
would still attack us. If they had managed to
blacken the name of communism this only showed
their propaganda had succeeded where ours had
not, and the only way forward was to fight harder
against capitalit propaganda and to be proud of
being called a Communist.

Many cases can be cited of workers who are at
the threshold of the Party but are so confused that
they still have not taken the step of joining. The
new members we have won in the recent past
were rather different cases. They were younger
men, free from Social-Democratic ideas, who de-
cided to join the Party without great personal
difficulty. Their political views have been
moulded as a result of the work of the Party
organization, and under the impact of developments.
It is perhaps of interest to note here that our
present Party members joined either before,
during or immediately after the war, or are new
members; no one appears to have joined between
1950 and 1958.

Our Communists are all active members. Much
of the good work they do is of a trade union
nature. They are to the fore in getting improved
working conditions in the factory and are con-
sidered to be good shop stewards. We must put
our Party organization into the forefront so that
collective discussion of all factory questions
takes place and a lead given to the workers on
these questions. We must be seen by the workers
as an organized political party and not as in-
dividual Communists.

John HILL
Factory shop steward

Belgium
COMBATING THE
MONOPOLY OFFENSIVE

NE of the results of the strike in Borinage

last February was that the government and
the employers promised to close the mines only
when suitable alternative employment would be
found for the redundant miners. Now it appears
that the government is about to abandon its
promise. The contemplated closing of 34 pits
will leave 27,000 miners jobless and entail ad-
ditional redundancy at auxiliary enterprises.

The enlarged meeting of the Central Committee
of the Communist Party held recently in the
coal-mining centre of Charleroi and attended by
trade unionists and miners discussed ways and
means of combating the closures. The resolution
regards this struggle as the most pressing task
and calls on all Communists, Socialists and
Catholics to take part in it. Given unity of action
by the miners, technicians, workers of other in-
dustries and shopkeepers whose livelihood de-
pends on the conditions of the workers, the
working people will be stronger than the hand-
ful of monopolists, and victory will be secured.

The Central Committee calls for unity in the
struggle to prevent any closing of mines during
the time needed for consultation in the country
and in Parliament on the status of the pits
(during this consultation workers’ representatives
will submit their own proposals for reforms);
for the early convening of both Houses of Parlia-
ment to hear the government’s reports on arbit-
rary acts which imperil the future of the country;
for legislation prohibiting the closing of enterprises;
for guaranteed subsistence for the workers at the
expense of the employers wherever dismissals
take place, and weekly benefits of 700 francs for
the unemployed.

The Central Committee maintains that the time
is ripe for the Belgian trade unions to establish
contact with those of “‘Little Europe’”’ with a view
to pooling their efforts in the fight against the
European Coal and Steel Community and the
Common Market.

The Communist Party is conducting a cam-
paign to explain its policy. In Borinage the

Communists organized a motorcade equipped with
loudspeakers to explain the Party’s proposals for
the coal industry. In the General Federation of
Labor the Communists are working hard for

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

unity of action. Communist members of Par-
liament have spoken in defense of the workers

and have exposed the anti-labor policy of
the government.
U.S.A.
TWO-MONTH 40th
ANNIVERSARY
CELEBRATION

HE 40th anniversary of the Communist Party

was observed in a number of towns and cities
here. Two thousand people attended a rally in New
York. The hall was decorated with posters and
slogans calling for an end to the cold war, for
banning nuclear tests and outlawing the manufac-
ture and use of atomic weapons. One slogan urged
peaceful coexistence and friendship with the Soviet
Union. Another called for support of Negro rights
in schools and in housing and for an end to segre-
gation. Still others stressed that a socialist America
signifies peace, economic security, equality and af-
fluence.

Eugene Dennis, National Secretary of the Party,
spoke about the historic significance of the
Khrushchov-Eisenhower meeting. The American
Communists, Dennis said, would work together
with all progressive and democratic forces to bury
the H-bomb in this decade and secure universal
peace.

In a message to the meeting William Z. Foster,
Honorary Chairman of the Party, called for a re-
vival of the militant spirit of fighters for socialism,
for active participation in building the party of
socialism in the United States.

The atmosphere at the meeting was one of en-
thusiasm. For the first time in many years a meet-
ing of the Communist Party was reported in the
capitalist press.

The statement issued by the National Committee
on the occasion of the 40th anniversary said: ‘““That
the Communist Party has survived every attack
and that its enemies cannot succeed in their efforts
to destroy it is due to the fact that it owes its
existence not to sinister machinations or conspira-
cies, but to the class struggle which, in this as in
every other capitalist country, inevitably gives
birth to a working-class political party guided by
the principles of scientific socialism.”

The National Committee has decided to mark
the 40th anniversary by a two-month celebration
in the course of which steps will be taken to streng-
then the unity of the Party, its contact with the
masses, and to educate the members so that they
can confidently look forward, and step out ‘“‘more
firmly on the road ahead.”

— OS eS ee

Qn

A) a
'

1 &

r,

n,
of

n-
>t-
he

on
1g-
the

ey
re

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 63

France

SOLIDARITY WITH C.P.
OF ARGENTINA

MESSAGE of fraternal solidarity from the

Central Committee of the French Communist
Party to the Communist Party of Argentina in con-
nection with the banning of the latter reads:

“Repressions launched in Argentina against the
Communists, against the working-class press and
organizations, testify to the impotence of the finan-
cial and landed oligarchy which is closely linked
with foreign imperialists and which is trying to
unload the burden of its reactionary policy onto
the masses and to doom them to rigid economy.
By its repressive measures against the Commun-
ists the Government wants to prevent the Party
from taking part in the forthcoming election—a
sign that it fears the popular discontent.

“Faced with this situation the Communist Party
is working hard to achieve unity of the working
class and united action by the masses, and shows
the path which should be taken in order to effect
the change in policy needed by the country.

“The French Communists greet their Argentine
brothers who are marching in the front ranks of
the fight for independence, peace and socialism.”

Federal Republic of Germany

CIRCULATING THE
ILLEGAL PRESS

HE 150th number of Freies Volk, central organ
of the Communist Party, appeared in August,
on the third anniversary of the banning of the
Party. During all this time the paper has been
regularly circulated among the different sections.
Lately Communist publications have increased in
number—this year alone another 50 illegal papers,
28 of which are factory and 16 district papers,
have appeared. There is now a paper for agricul-
tural laborers. With a view to establishing contact
with Social Democrats some Party organizations
are putting out special papers. Thus, the Rhein-
Wupper District Party Committee is putting out a
paper entitled Der Sozialist; in Hagen there is Die
Linke (The Left), and in Duesseldorf—Der Feind
steht rechts (The Enemy from the Right). Sales,
while not always the same, tend to grow. Particu-
lar increases are achieved during political cam-
paigns. During the Landtag elections in Schleswig-
Holstein the local Communist paper Norddeutsches
Echo increased its circulation by 30,000.
Party members are always on the lookout for
new ways of distributing their publications. On the
anniversary of the banning of the Party, some

3,000 copies of the paper issued by the Reckling-
hausen District Party Committee were distributed
by attaching bundles to trees. Passers-by took them
as if from a newsstand. The police moved into
action but too late—not a single copy was left on
the trees. In some factories in Aachen leaflets
against atomic armament were put up on hooks on
the walls, so that each worker could pick one for
himself. This ‘‘self-service’ device is exceedingly
popular with the workers.

A recent issue of Badisches Volksecho, a local
Communist paper, carried an interview with a
young worker who always finds Freies Volk and
other Party publications in his mailbox. ‘‘Who sup-
plies me with the Communist Party publications
I don’t know, but I am always glad when I find
them in the box and I pass them on to my friends.
From these materials we have satisfied ourselves
that the Communist Party alone really champions
our interests. My friends and I look forward to
every number of the paper. And if I only knew
our supplier, I would discuss some points with
him.”

Originality and initiative are features of the
work of distributing the illegal Party newspapers.

Chile

A REGIONAL COMMITTEE
NEWSPAPER

HE national paper of the Communist Party of

Chile reaches Punta Arenas, capital of the
Magallanes province in the extreme south of the
country and about 1,500 miles distant from San-
tiago, only after great delay. Sending the paper
by airmail adds to its cost and hampers distribu-
tion. Moreover, the national paper cannot, for ob-
vious reasons, cover all the issues, even the most
important, affecting the southern part of the coun-
try.

Last year the Regional Party Committee decided
to publish a local paper, Avance. Numerous diffi-
culties, both financial and technical, had to be over-
come. The south, more so than any other part of
the country, was affected by the postwar anti-
communist repressions and the banning of the
Communist Party (1948-50). Contact and influence
were maintained only among the miners and among
the middle sections in Punta Arenas.

Although two bourgeois dailies have a fairly big
circulation in the province, the Communist paper
is becoming increasingly popular. At first, some
of its articles, too general in character, did not
deeply analyze local problems. But it improved
with time and its prestige rose so that now it has
a constant and fairly wide readership. It is sold
by Party members and by special groups drawn

64

from the Communist Youth League. Available also
on some of the usual newsstands, it is sold out and
more copies could be disposed of were it not for
technical difficulties. The paper has re-established
contact between the Party and the workers in many
enterprises, especially in the oil fields—the basic
industry on Tierra del Fuego.

The paper has many voluntary correspondents
in the enterprises, including those in which there
is not as yet a Party organization; it has still to
establish itself in the countryside.

The launching of the paper and its successful
work are due in large measure to Communist-
Socialist co-operation. The Socialist, Communist
and a number of other influential parties are united
in a Popular Action Front which was formed after
the conclusion of a Unity Pact. Socialists are help-
ing the paper in many ways. The print-shop, for
example, is located in the premises of the Socialist
Party Committee, and some Socialists help to dis-
tribute the paper. At the end of 1958, when police
action was taken against the paper, the Socialist
Party protested jointly with the Communists. The
authorities had to give way, pleading that a police
official had ‘exceeded his duties.”

The Communist and Socialist parties have con-
ducted joint campaigns against the so-called hun-
ger law, for the economic demands of the southern
workers, in defence of oii, etc. An important part
in these campaigns was played by Avance.

Japan
WINNING NEW MEMBERS

HE Central Committee of the Communist

Party of Japan, after having discussed the
results of the local elections and those to the
House of Councillors, has sent a letter to all Party
members urging them to build and strengthen
the ranks of the Party.

The letter noted that joint action by the demo-
cratic forces was a feature of the election cam-
paign. In some places the Party nominated its own
candidates, in others it did so jointly with the
Socialist Party. As a result the two parties won
more votes than in the previous elections, gaining

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

eight seats in the House. The Communist Party,
however, did not get the anticipated number of
votes and seats. This is explained not only by the
intensified drive of the reactionaries and by the
dithering of the Socialist Party which evaded active
struggle against reaction, but also by the short-
comings of the Party—poor contact with the masses
and the weakness and passivity of some of its
organizations.

In the growing struggle the Party was now a
force which could not be disregarded. But in order
to justify the trust and hopes of the working people
it was necessary to increase the membership, to
make the Party a really mass party and to improve
its organization. ‘‘Notwithstanding the extremely
difficult conditions, we have millions of loyal sup-
porters. This is a solid base on which it is possible
to strengthen and extend the Party. If we neglect
this base and notice only the difficulties, we will
never build a strong party. . . . We must get rid
of the fear of difficulties, overcome these difficul-
ties, advance and win. In this lies the pride and
glory of Communists. Unfortunately, however, our
Party, having experienced numerous hardships
and trials, has become accustomed to a member-
ship of a few tens of thousands. For a long time
it has not conducted planned work to build a
strong party, which would be the true vanguard of
the working class.”

The Central Committee strongly criticized the
so-called ‘theory of spontaneous growth,” and
stressed that in order to extend and consolidate
the Party it was not enough to have a clear-cut
political line, a program of action and rules—
needed also was a systematic and sustained effort
by the Party as a whole and by each member.

The letter calls for doubling the membership
before the next congress, for strengthening and
activizing the branches, for a bigger circulation
of the Party press and for sharply improved propa-
ganda.

The C.C.’s decision and its letter have met with
a warm response on the part of the members.
They are being discussed throughout the Party
and the organiaztions are drawing up plans to im-
prove work among all sections of the population.
New branches are being formed in the factories
and in the rural areas.

‘vu

~~ FF Oe ww oe

—-— —_ |

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 65

WORK AMONG THE YOUTH

The New in Our Movement

The Editorial Board requested youth leaders from a number of capitalist

countries to share their experiences.

Each national youth movement has its own special features arising from
the peculiarities, traditions and the stage of development of the country.
These, naturally, were reflected in the points made by the comrades.

In publishing the talks with Renzo Trivelli (Italy), Arnoldo Piniera
(Argentina), and Sarda Mitra (India), the Editorial Board invites readers
to express their views on work among the youth.

Renzo Trivelli

UMEROUS questionnaires, articles and a

broad discussion in the press—all devoted to
youth questions—indicate that the relations between
the young people and society, their way of life and
their thinking, are attracting more and more atten-
tion in the capitalist countries, including Italy.

The bourgeois press and sociologists are more
interested in the sensational aspects, such as
rowdyism and violence, although these, of course,
are not the basic aspects of the life of the rising
generation. Still it would be wrong to disregard
the apathy now prevalent among youth in relation
to the problems posed by life, their openly cynical
attitude to political and moral values. Some sociol-
ogists believe that a kind of conflict has arisen be-
tween society and some sections of the youth. They
incline to the view that some young people, seeing
no purpose in the life of the world around them,
take refuge in solitude and passive protest. Al-
though such sentiments are far from heing deci-
sive, they cannot be ignored.

In Italy, in recent years, far-reaching socia
economic changes have created new conditions for
the teenagers. The first thing to note is the radical
change in the social structure of the countryside.
As a result of the agrarian crisis and growing
monopoly rule, the zones where farm laborers were
traditionally employed have disintegrated. The ruin
of the smallholders and sharecroppers led to the
impoverishment of vast agricultural areas. Large
capitalist farms began to appear. Hundreds of
thousands of young peasants, unable to find em-
ployment on the land, leave the countryside for
the towns or go abroad in search of work. In many
areas the young farm laborers, mostly unskilled,
have been replaced by tractor drivers and others
who have specialized in crop-growing, etc. Thus,
new problems are cropping up, and we must re-
organize our work accordingly.

The appearance of new branches of industry in
recent years (which were characterized by favor-
able business activity) has resulted in the working
class being reinforced. At present there are some
500,000 apprentices and young workers in Italy.
These youngsters came to the factories for various
reasons. Of no small importance was the fact that
employers prefer to take on young people, who
master the new techniques more quickly, and that
the trade unions forced Parliament to adopt a
law on the status of the apprentices.

But the social consequences of these changes, far
from solving the problems of youth, have added to
them. Youth unemployment (some 500,000 young
men and women are looking for their first jobs) is
a chronic feature. Those lucky enough to get jobs
become the object of ruthless exploitation. They
arrive in the factories after careful selection, and
often replace political ‘‘suspects.’’ Their industrial
training is inadequate; their knowledge lags far
behind modern requirements, largely because of
the high fees charged for vocational training.

Thus the life of the young people is rendered
gloomy by mass unemployment, abject poverty,
intensified exploitation, restriction and even denial
of democratic rights to large numbers of them.
All this, naturally, is reflected in the mood of the
young people, makes them despondent, dissatisfied,
uncertain of the morrow and impels some to seek
an outlet in reckless protests or to withdraw into
their shells.

The new situation poses new problems both in
trade union and in political work. In those places
where the Communist Party, the unions and the
Communist youth organizations have properly
assessed the situation, where they direct their ef-
forts in the right way, there has been a distinct
rise in the activity of the young people. The new
entrants into industry who, although they had been

66 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

thoroughly screened, encountered discrimination,
soon*became aware of the reality of class struggle.
Most of them, naturally, sided with those who
defend their rights in the fight against the em-
ployers. This circumstance has had its effect on
the youth as a whole.

This brings us to a new feature—the participa-
tion of students in the working-class struggle. In
Florence, Ancona, Civitavecchia and Nocera, in a
word, wherever the workers were fighting against
factory closures and curtailment of production, the
students rallied to their support and conducted
strikes. This shows that a new attitude to the work-
ing class is developing among the students.

For this there are a number of reasons. First,
the social base of education has been extended:
more working-class and peasant children are now
attending school, although illiteracy, the absence
of compulsory education and the defects in the
educational system are still strongly felt. Second,
the students are beginning to realize that they can
find a place in society only in a regenerated Italy.
And, finally, our political work has not been in
vain. We placed before the students not only their
own partiuclar problems but also the need for a
close alliance between them and the working people
for the regeneration of society.

Bitter experience impels the young people to
seek the unity and mutual understanding so essen-
tial for the solution of their pressing problems. And
here we come to a question which requires special
consideration. In the conditions of Western Europe
it is imperative not only to organize a strong
Communist youth movement but also to achieve
the broadest possible unity of all the youth.

In Italy, as in other West European countries,
there are broad Catholic and Social-Democratic
youth movements. And even where there are no
organized movements of this kind, the ideological
influence of Catholicism and Social Democracy
should not be underestimated. Is understanding and
co-operation with these movements possible? Is it
possible through this co-operation to bring the un-
organized youth into action? We say yes, and we
have ample grounds for our confidence.

The different youth movements tend to co-
operate in the fight for their particular issues, for
peace and socio-political reforms. Numerous cam-
paigns, mainly on local issues, have been conduct-
ed unitedly. And yet we should remember, if we
want to pursue an effective policy of unity, that in
these actions not everything goes smoothly, that
in order to achieve understanding it is necessary
to fight grimly, and to repel the opponents of
unity. Sometimes unity is disrupted because of
internal weaknesses or formal conflicts; at other
times it proves to be unattainable because of our
incorrect posing of the questions.

At present the youth movements are co-operating,
exchanging views, discussing issues and arguing.
Actually, unity of action is established not formally
but by convincing the youth of the need to take a
common stand. Arguments there must be. But this
signifies something more than “‘exposing’’ the youth
leaders who argue against unity. The main thing
is to find out, by studying the other movements,
what we have in common. We sincerely believe
that common interests will eventually gain the
upper hand. It cannot be denied, for example, that
the Communist Youth Federation and the Christian-
Democratic or Social-Democratic youth movements
have entirely different views. Still, we know of
instances when all the youth movements, the fas-
cists excluded, agreed to unity of action on press-
ing local issues. This was the case in Terni when
we campaigned for jobs for young people. The
same thing took place in Reggio di Calabria where
the youth, jointly with other democratic forces,
took action for the regeneration of their province,
which is one of the most backward in the coun-
try.

Unity can take a variety of forms. In our opinion,
this variety helps in reaching a common stand on
a number of issues. Were we to seek unity by call-
ing on everyone to join forces with us this would
simply mean boosting our own policy. It goes
without saying that the content of the policy of
unity cannot be ignored. We define our attitude to
the urgent problems calling for solution, suggest
how they can be solved, conduct our discussions
on this basis and compare the different viewpoints
because in this way the young people gain ex-
perience and find opportunities for contacts which
would form the basis of and define the forms of
broader joint activities.

Here we should raise the question of the relation-
ship between the policy of unity and the struggle
for socialism. It is not always easy to get clarity
and a correct understanding of this basic question,
with the result that ‘“‘schematism’’ often prevails.
We try to explain the tie-up between the struggle
for unity and the struggle for socialism. Our
policy rests on the identity of youth interests and
the struggle for adherence to the Constitution
Every step forward in realizing unity, in safeguard-
ing the interests of the youth and in the struggle
for socio-economic and political reforms envisaged
by the Constitution, is a vital necessity for the peo-
ple and, objectively, is a step towards socialism.
Far from concealing this connection, we, on the
contrary, speak about it openly, because for us
united action is inseparable from the struggle for
the Italian road to socialism.

Thus, our work in the sphere of socialist eduea-
tion is imbued with the spirit of struggle and
understanding of life as it is; filled with a new

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 67

content it helps us to demonstrate the superiority
of socialism, to popularize the achievements of
the Soviet Union, China and the other People’s De-
mocracies and to show the international conditions
of the fight for socalism. Propagating our views
and the fundamentals of Marxism among the youth
acquires special importance in view of the growing
class struggle in Italy.

If we take cognizance of the difficulties encoun-
tered in pursuing this policy, it will become clear
that its success depends on the initiative and the
strength of the Communist youth organization. Our
Youth Federation is a truly mass organization, a
school of communism, constantly replenishing the
Communist Party. Still, it is not as broad as it
could and should be. Unless our movement ac-
quires a really mass character it will be im-
possible to work for broad unity of the young
generation, and its role as a school of communist
education will be limited.

The job of establishing a really mass Commu-
nist Youth Federation capable of participating in
national campaigns and in the day-to-day political
struggle in the factories, educational establishments
and in the streets, confronts us with new problems.
The working class and the Communists, who play
an important part in the country, are the force
capable of leading the country in the fight for
adherence to the Constitution and for socialism.
Our Federation must be in a position to cope with
these great tasks. In other words, it should admit
to membership young people of every walk of life;
it should embrace all aspects of life and the inter-
ests of the young generation. It should not be a
narrow organization that takes pride in its isolation,
but a broad youth movement working in_ all
spheres of political, social and cultural activities,
a movement maintaining close contact with the
unorganized youth.

To make our Federation conform more closely
to this type of youth organization it was necessary
to study its basic unit—the youth group. We de-
fined the group as the center of political struggle
of the youth movement and of communist educa-
tion. Hence there arose the need for local com-
mittees capable of displaying political initiative
and giving proper guidance to the groups. An orga-
nization of this kind requires a larger number of
activists and all-round practical work. For this
purpose we are trying to improve the composition
of our activists and to add to their numbers not
solely by mere admonitions. We want our young
functionaries and activists to carry out decisions

in a creative way. We insist on their taking part
in elaborating policy, in discussing international
and home issues, displaying initiative and keen-
ness and ability to find their bearings in the

‘rapidly developing political struggle. Slowness and

delays in this direction took place when we failed
to take into account the economic and political
changes or when our young Communists did not
participate in formulating and carrying out our
policy.

Experience has shown that without a_ strong
youth federation our unity policy and unity itself
will never gain the necessary scope.

The fight for the young generation has been
waged in Italy for years. The main forces in-
volved are the same as in the socio-political strug-
gle. The revolutionary forces know that winning
the youth is essential to victory; the reactionaries
on their part are working hard to achieve the same
end. And in this they are displaying the utmost
resourcefulness. This job has been entrusted not
only to the bourgeois youth movements; it is car-
ried on by all the conservative forces backed by
Government machinery and with crude interfer-
ence by the Church through Catholic and other
youth organizations.

Clearly, in this situation the working-class and
democratic organizations can no longer confine
themselves solely to the activity of the youth
movements; new ways of winning the youth must
be found. This work should be conducted in com-
mon by all the democratic forces. In other words,
it is necessary to co-operate in helping the youth,
in safeguarding their interests and educating them
in the spirit of democracy. This should be done
by the democratic organizations, each in its own
sphere. We have in mind here the trade unions,
the co-operatives, the popular clubs and the demo-
cratic municipalities. These forces are really cap-
able of opposing the ruling class because the
struggle for the youth is, in essence, a struggle for
a just cause. Not only are the democratic forces
defending the interests of the young people, they
are calling on them to take their place in the
socio-political struggle for the regeneration of
Italy. The activity of the monopoly forces, on the
other hand, is reactionary by nature and, at best,
is of a paternalist, oppressive character, aiming
at making the youth the buttress of the clerical
state.

We hold that the activity of all the democratic
forces is decisive for winning the youth, and in
this respect our past work has been wanting.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

Uniting the Youth of the Country

Arnoldo Piniera

HE reactionary policy of the ruling classes of

Argentina and the intrigues of North Ameri-
can imperialism are aggravating the situation in
the country. Simultaneously the working reonle
are stepping up their resistance and the anti-
imperialist forces are intensifying the movement
for unity, with the youth playing a bigger role
in the movement.

Recent developments indicate growing activity
among the youth. Three general strikes took place
in the early months of the year with more than a
million workers involved in each. The working
youth were in the vanguard—functioning on strike
committees, taking part in demonstrations, picket-
ing and erecting barricades in the struggle against
the police and the army.

Last year thousands of school pupils and students
protested against attempts to establish private uni-
versities of a religious character. U.S. imperialism
is attacking our national culture mainly through
the clergy. The youth advanced the slogans: ‘‘No
Private Universities,”’ “Defend Secular Education,”
“Fight Imperialist Penetration into Education and
Culture.”” The pupil-student action culminated in a
broad demonstration during which they chanted:
“State Monopolies—Yes! Standard Oil Company—
No!” The 500,000-strong meeting held at the end
of the demonstration in Buenos Aires was address-
ed by members of all parties, including the Com-
munists. Meetings and demonstrations swept the
country. The movement brought the entire youth
into action. Closer ties have been established be-
tween the students and workers. The call: “‘Work-
ers and Students, Forward in Unity!”” became one
of the slogans of the movement.

Our young people react quickly to political
events. The youth organizations of the Radicals
and other parties protested against nuclear tests
in the South Atlantic. Youth political organizations,
federations of university students and secondary
school students in Buenos Aires jointly protested
against the U.S.-Argentine naval maneuvers.

Many examples could be cited showing how the
young people — workers and other sections — are
rallying in the struggle against imperialism. This
indicates the possibility of establishing a patriotic
anti-imperialist youth front as a component of the
national democratic front for which the Com-
munist Party is working.

What does the term “patriotic youth front” im-
ply? It implies building up the youth movement
with the united working youth as its core. The

youth front, like the national democratic front,
can take shape under working-class leadership and
on the basis of the worker-peasant alliance; it
can include also the middle sections and some
sections of the national bourgeoisie — those not
tied to imperialism. The front should fight for eco-
nomic demands, for national independence, democ-
racy and peace. We see this front not as an alli-
ance between leaders but as a mass movement of
young people and their organizations.

To lead the youth successfully we must take into
account their specific interests. And this sometimes
is underestimated. Some Party organizations do
not send their young functionaries to help the dif-
ferent sections of the youth whose specific interests
and requirements call for forms of work different
from those among adults. We record progress
wherever we vary our approach and support the
demands of the different groups of young people.

Take first the working youth. They participate in
struggles of the working class as an active and
militant force. At the same time they. have their
own demands, cultural requirements and sports
interests. These demands can best be defended by
the trade unions. That is why we are setting up
youth commissions first of all in the unions. Some
think that in doing this we will be tying the youth
to the trade union movement, but these fears are
groundless. The commissions will study the de-
mands of the youth, submit them to the union
leadership and incorporate them into the general
program of workers’ demands.

The commissions are formed in a variety of
ways. As a rule they appear when the young
workers in one or another factory put forward de-
mands concerning vocational training, wages, etc.
The factory organization of the Communist Youth
Federation invites union members to attend a
meeting; at this meeting the commission is elect-
ed. In other instances football clubs are formed
on the initiative of the CYF members. Matches
are arranged with the clubs in other factories.
Football, as is known, is the national sport in
Argentina, and the young people are very fond of
it. The club meetings discuss, in addition to sport,
economic and other questions. Not infrequently
commissions are elected at these meetings. Some-
times the commissions are set up at factory clubs
where they are readily attended by young people.

The setting up of the youth commissions depends
largely on the attitude of the trade union leaders.
Wherever they appreciate the significance of com-

tio
tre

, Se SS. ee ae.

mana vi OO WH = 6

oo

on

of

le-
C.
th

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 69

missions and help them they are formed at once
in the unions, and wherever they oppose them, the
young workers have to act through other organi-
zations and in this way gain recognition of the
right to form their commissions. A typical exam-
ple in this respect: Young Communists of a large
textile factory organized football clubs which were
joined by young workers in ten factory shops. When
the strike issue arose these clubs became the core
which rallied the youth for the struggle. The strike
struggle, in turn, accelerated the forming of a
commission.

The number of these commissions is growing.
In addition to those in the factories, others have
been formed by the central committees of ten
trade unions.

We pay special attention to the young people
attending vocational schools. It is most important
that these youngsters should get accustomed to
organization and act in unity. Not long ago we
formed a federation of trainees in the vocational
schools in Buenos Aires.

But, granting the significance of the youth com-
missions in trade unions and in the sports and
public organizations, we should not forget that
they will function all the better the stronger the
factory branches of the Communist Youth Federa-
tion are. These, too, are growing in number. We
have about 100 of them in the capital, and more
and more branches are being formed in the
Buenos Aires, Santa Fé and other provinces. We
are building strong organizations in the large mills
and factories.

A specific approach is needed in the countryside
where we have to overcome the influence of the
Agrarian Federation and the Youth Co-operative
Federation both of which are dominated by weal-
thy farmers.

We work mainly through the clubs of these
federations, and are trying to turn them into
centers of struggle for land by uniting the young
peasants — members of the different organizations,
students, agricultural laborers and tenants — es-
pecially in areas where there are big latifundia,
into rural youth leagues.

Here is an example showing how these leagues
are formed. The Party organization in the north
of Buenos Aires province helped us to prepare for
a gathering of rural youth. The gathering was at-
tended also by factory workers, railwaymen, sec-
ondary school pupils, students and members of poli-
tical parties—500 people altogether. As a result a
rural youth league was established.

Successful meetings are taking place between
young workers and peasants. “‘Caravans”’ are being
formed in towns, including singers, dancers, elocu-
tionists, football players, etc. The ‘‘caravans”’
travel to the villages and organize outdoor events

—singing, dancing, games—winding up with talks;
addresses and presents are exchanged at these
gatherings which are very popular.

It is sometimes difficult to assemble the young
people because the villages are few and far be-
tween, but the chief difficulty is the scarcity of
organizers. There are 40 rural Communist youth
groups in the Buenos Aires province and about
30 in Santa Fé province. But they are weak orga-
nizationally and they function badly. Our task is
to strengthen them and to form new groups.

We have made good progress in the work among
the students. From contacts with their leaders we
have passed to broad student action. We discuss
with them the pressing issues of student life and
link these with the question of safeguarding the
national culture and public education as a whole.
Each faculty has its student center with commit-
tees which handle issues such as protecting the
country’s oil resources, civil liberties, committees
for action against high-handed officials, commit-
tees for culture, sports and others. Members of
the Communist Youth Federation take an active
part in these centers and committees. There are
now about 1,000 CYF members in Buenos Aires
University. They do not conceal their views, and
thanks largely to their work many students now
hold progressive views on international and home
problems.

We have been working for some time to estab-
lish united centers in the secondary schools, with
the result that each school now has its center.
Here our members co-operate with the Socialist,
Catholic and Independent youth. Secondary school
federations have been organized in Buenos Aires
and in other provinces.

Last year secondary school pupils supported the
big strike called by university students. Teenagers
erected barricades, clashed with the police, caught
the tear-gas bombs before they exploded and threw
them back at the police. Some 400 youths and
girls, mostly pupils, applied for CYF member-
ship during this strike. We now have Communist
youth organizations in most (32) of the colleges in
Buenos Aires. The same is true of the provscial
colleges.

Taking into account the specific family features
in the Argentine we work separately among the
girls for whom special organizations have been
formed for the purpose of bringing them into social
activity. In the people’s clubs in residential areas
girls attend dress-making classes, take par* in
amateur theatrical groups and basketball tems
and help to distribute the journal published by
the Union of Argentine Women. Special attention
is given to work among girls living in the so-
called poor (working-class) districts where we
have about 40 girls’ organizations, some in the
capital, others in Buenos Aires province.

70

We conduct work also among the unorganized
youth. Someone suggests, for example, that a
sports competition be arranged. But there is no
sports ground. A special group is then organized
which visits the municipal council and asks for
playing field facilities. This group wins the sup-
port of all the young people in the given area. It
is not easy to get the playing fields, but once ob-
tained the young people learn from their own
experience how things can be done by joint action.
In this way the youth are drawn into higher forms
of action as, for example, in defense of the oil
resources.

The membership of our Federation has grown
from 3,500 in 1953 to 28,000 at present. It is the
largest and most stable youth organization in
Argentina. Our journal The Youth is exceedingly
popular. However, much remains to be done to
make all members active and to conduct work
among young people.

In recent times we have improved the work of
our groups; we have diversified it and have brought
it into line with the requirements of youth organi-
zations. In additon to political education, we have
developed sport and recreational work, arranged
evening parties, visits to the countryside and cele-
brated national and revolutionary holidays. Every
summer 250 active members spend some time at
our youth camp. We arrange things so that work-
ers, peasants and students meet there; so that
students can learn something from young workers
and peasants, and vice versa. The groups choose
the members for the camp. The camp program
combines instruction with entertainment, so that
visitors acquire knowledge and good habits. As a
rule, heart-to-heart talks are held round the camp-
fire at the end of the stay. The youngsters talk
about home life, about their ambitions and about
our common cause. The camp visits leave a deep
impression.

We insist on all our members working in other
organizations in order to win the confidence of
young people. The policy of unity with other youth
organizations is yielding fruit; it is facilitated by
the fact that the rank and file of most youth orga-
nizations are, as a rule, more advanced, more
democratic than the corresponding political par-
ties.

Whenever the need arises to fight for any de-
mand we turn to the other youth organizations for
joint action. In many instances they respond to our
call. For example, the youth organizations of the
Communist, Intransigent Radical, Progressive-

Democratic and other parties conducted a joint
campaign against the nuclear tests in the South
Atlantic. All youth organizations rallied to protest
against the U.S.-Argentine naval maneuvers in
Mar del Plata. They held numerous demonstra-
tions and street meetings, and distributed leaflets.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

Many provincial youth organizations of the
Socialists, Intransigent Radicals and other parties
took part in preparations for the World Youth
Festival in Vienna. And if unity on a national and
provincial scale is not broad enough, this is mainly
because of the obstacles raised by the leadership
of some of the parties. However, we are working
perseveringly to strengthen unity on a national
scale.

When at the beginning of 1959 the government,
in an attempt to crush the strike movement, called
up the 1936-37 age-groups for military service, the
youth organizations jointly opposed the action with
the result that the government had to abandon
its intention. Now that the U.S. imperialists are
threatening Cuba, the youth organizations of the
Intransigent Radicals, Progressive Democrats and
the Communist Youth Federation are calling on
the young people to volunteer for defense of the
Cuban revolution.

Experience has shown the importance of streng-
thening the Communist Youth Federation. In this
we are guided by Lenin’s concept of what the
Communist Youth League should be. In his article
The Youth International, Lenin wrote that not in-
frequently the middle-aged and aged do not know
how to approach the youth in the proper way, that
of necessity the youth would come to socialism
in a different way, by other paths, in other forms,
in circumstances that differ from those of their
fathers. ‘Incidentally this is why we must be de-
cidedly in favor of the organizational independence
of the Youth League, not only because the oppor-
tunists fear this independence, but because of the
very nature of the case; for unless they have
complete independence ,the youth will be unable
either to train good Socialists from their midst or
prepare themselves to lead socialism forward.’’*

In our declaration on ‘‘The Principles of the
Communist Youth League’ we pointed out that
our Federation educates the youth in the spirit of
Marxism-Leninism and proletarian international-
ism, on national and democratic traditions and in
the struggle for their demands. The Federation ac-
quaints the youth with the policy of the Commu-
nist Party and helps them to master it. It works
under the guidance of the Party. In the past we
tended to neglect the study of theory and political
problems. Some thought that the youth should not
take any interest in politics, that they should con-
fine themselves to sports and entertainment. This
tendency did much harm to our cause.

Our experience teaches us that the Communist
Youth Federation is the vanguard of the young
people, that its members should be an example to
all working youth and student organizations. They

*Lenin, The Youth International, 1916.

sO
tic

tie
to}

ar
er!
So.
lig
pe
isn
Bui

1sn

meer (V

= e.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 71

should popularize their political views and outlook
and the achievements of the socialist countries.
The Federation is a school of communism through
which the Party carries on its work among the

youth. Consequently there can be no two lines,
there is only one line, that of our Party, and this
line we are carrying out with due regard to the

specific features of the youth movement.

Our Task—To Organize All Young People

Sarda Mitra

N India and, I think, in some other Asian and

African countries which recently suffered under
colonialism, the young people believed that their
job was to fight for the liberation of their country,
that without winning freedom they could not gain
their specific demands.

Although under colonial rule attempts had been
made to establish youth organizations, these orga-
nizations did not develop beyond the embryonic
stage. The political parties paid little attention to
shaping and strengthening the youth organizations.

It was only in the postwar that youth organiza-
tions began to be formed. A big contribution in this
respect was made by the World Federation of
Democratic Youth which in 1948 held a conference
of the young pecple of South-East Asia. By this
time the Indian National Congress, the Socialist
Party and others had begun work among the
youth. In 1954 the Congress Party organized a
special youth department. Similar departments
were set up in the sate and district organizations
of the Congress Party. This Party does not spare
funds in its efforts to win over the youth.

It was in this situation that our organization
began to take shape. Attempts to organize the
democratic youth had been made before, but they
were sporadic affairs and there was no exchange
of experience between the various organizations.
In December 1958 we sponsored a conference at
which we formulated the policy of our youth move-
ment.

Discussion centered round two questions: should
socialism become the aim of the All-Indian Federa-
tion of Democratic Youth, and what should its
attitude be to political issues and the political par-
ties? All agreed that the issue of socialism was so
topical that our organization could not evade it.
Although socialism is popular in our country, there
are different ideas about it. Some accept the gov-
ernment’s concept, others believe in ‘‘democratic’’
socialism, and still others propagate a Hindu (re-
ligious) socialism. Growing numbers of young
people are taking up the ideas of scientific social-
ism and adopting the Marxist-Leninist teaching.
But no matter how varied the concepts of social-
ism may be, ideas such as equality and the need
to abolish the division into privileged and non-

privileged classes are warmly supported by the
overwhelming majority of young people. These
ideas have found expression in the program of
our Federation.

As regards our attitude towards politics and the
parties, we can say that there is no tendency in
our ranks to turn the Federation into a mere
sports and recreational association. An organiza-
tion which strives to uphold the interests of the
young people and effectively serve the nation can-
not ignore such burning issues as unemployment,
the lack of opportunities for education and recrea-
tion, safeguarding sovereignty and national inde-
pendence. The Indian youth want to participate in
the worldwide struggle against colonialism and for
peace. In our conditions this struggle does not
signify affiliation to any party. It affects the inter-
ests of various sections of the young peopie, the
overwhelming majority of them. For this reason a
youth organization can be independent, without
Party affiliation. The Communists work actively in
our Federation, but this does not necessarily mean
that it must be a Communist organization.

We arrived at this conclusion because in the
different states people who fight for democracy but
are not yet prepared to join the Communist Party
work together with us in the ranks of the youth
movement. Were we to create a Communist youth
league we would narrow the ranks of our organi-
zation, whereas the situation is such that there
are opportunities for winning large numbers of
young people. It is better to have an organization
of a general democratic type.

The tasks facing the country call for a widely
representative youth organization. The program
of this organization is a democratic one, express-
ing the interests of the youth of India. We are
working for peace, to preserve national indepen-
dence against any imperialist encroachments. We
call for solidarity with the young people of other
countries that are fighting against colonialism. We
are fighting also for the democratic and economic
rights of young people, for the right to organize,
against unemployment, to provide our youth with
better opportunities for sports and for satisfying
their cultural needs. This program makes it pos-
sible to unite the various sections of the youth.

72

I shall cite a few examples to show how we
carry on our work. I come from Bengal and for
this reason my examples will be from that state.

We base our activity on concrete things. For
instance, in March 1958, when there was an out-
break of cholera in the state and in Calcutta, the
local authorities were hard put to it to halt the
epidemic. Our organization assigned 500 members
to aid in the matter. They were taught how to
make injections. Working in the streets and in
the slums our comrades helped to save some 48,000
lives.

In June we conducted a large-scale peace cam-
paign and celebrated the anniversary of the
Pancha Shila principles. We held 22 youth meet-
ings and organized a strike of 100,000 students.
Ten thousand postcards protesting against Anglo-
American aggression in the Middle East were dis-
tributed among the young people to sign and send
to the corresponding embassies. Demonstrations
were held outside the U.S. and British embassies.
This year we conducted a campaign of solidarity
with the Algerian youth, collecting clothing, medi-
cines and money for them.

A festival of children’s films, the first of its
kind in India, was a big success. We received 96
films from 25 countries. The owners of 36 cinemas
in Calcutta allowed us to use their premises free
of charge. One of the cinema owners acted as
chairman of the festival committee. The commit-
tee also included the secretary of the Cinema
Workers’ Union who found the necessary personnel
for showing the films. The festival lasted fifteen

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

days in Calcutta and its suburbs and aroused con-
siderable interest among the public. These exam-
ples give an adea of our activities.

Needless to say we are organizing the young
people to fight for economic demands. Last year
we studied the conditions of the young workers
and launched a campaign to improve them. We
demanded equal pay for equal work, vocational
training, etc. We discovered, however, that it was
difficult for the youth organizations to fight for
their demands without the co-operation of the trade
unions. The unions have their own problems and
do not always pay attention to the questions worry-
ing the youth. True, we have the moral support of
the unions, but we need more than that.

Quite a few Communists tend to underestimate
work among the youth. Some hold that the youth
movement is associated with sports and recreation
and is not a really militant movement.

In the struggle to solve the general democratic
tasks the young people come into contact with
the Party organizations. We are trying to consoli-
date this contact. The youth movement is growing
much faster than our organizational opportunities.
We have our organizations in 11 of the 14 states;
some of these are rather large. The All-Indian
Federation of Democratic Youth has more than
200,000 members. We badly need functionaries. The
Party organizations have gained a better under-
standing of the significance of contact with the
young people and are devoting more attention to
their organizations.

= mF mh 2.

<_

gr
tio

int
tur

mo
qui
sup
inte

trac

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 73

European “Integration”
and Contradictions of Capitalism

and the Working Class

(Continuation of the exchange of opinions begun in No. 10, 1959)

Economic Effects of the Common Market

J. Pronteau

1. Why the French Monopolies Agreed
to “Integration”

N THE advance to “‘integration’’ the political
factors mentioned by Comrade Arzumanyan in

his interesting report are indeed important—even
of major importance. But, as he pointed out, they
should not be taken out of the context of capitalist
economic development and the particular situation
in which the monopolies and bourgeoisie of the
Western European countries find themselves.

These political factors correspond to the objec-
tive economic processes; and the policy pursued
by state monopoly capitalism consists precisely in
multiple attempts to adapt itself to the tendencies
of present-day economy without, however, being
capable of solving the contradictions engendered
by capitalism.

Among the constant and deep-going economic
processes, mention should be made of the tendency
of the productive forces to develop under the im-
pact of technological progress. In a way, ‘‘integra-
tion” is needed by the monopolies with a view to
overcoming some of the contradictions that arise
out of the general crisis of capitalism and are ag-
gravated by it, to removing obstacles to centraliza-
tion of capital and concentration and specialization
of enterprises. Evidently, at the present level of
interlocking of international groupings, the struc-
ture of state capitalism in each individual country
is no longer able to meet the requirements of the
monopolies. International cartels are trying to ac-
quire supranational legal status and to assume a
supranational state structure in a wide range of
international relations. From this point of view
trade quotas, customs barriers and the difficulties

caused by diverse rates of exchange are impeding
consolidation of monopoly rule. The various pro-
tection systems which have been in force for the
past few decades (and this is particularly true of
France where for more than 60 years protection
has been the cornerstone of bourgeois policy) have
enabled large numbers of small and medium enter-
prises to stay in business. Although poorly equip-
ped, they have fought the monopolies, and, what
is more, have at times under bourgeois democ-
racy exerted considerable political influence.

Since the end of the 19th century protection has
been the policy of the French bourgeoisie. French
imperialism aimed at conquering as many colonies
as it could, and at exporting capital in the form
of loans. This usurious nature of French capital-
ism was, as Lenin noted at the time, its main
feature. Its negligible home investments went main-
ly into the manufacturing industry in the metropo-
lis. This brought into being many enterprises
whose high production costs determined market
prices. In such conditions, and thanks to industrial
and trade agreements between themselves, the big
enterprises—those with considerably lower produc-
tion costs—were able to secure very high rates of
profit, which doomed the national economy to
general stagnation.

After the Second World War, however, it was
no longer possible to keep to this general political
and economic line. In order not to be squeezed
out of existence the French imperialists had to
make good a lag of many years’ standing and to
increase their investments, chiefly through self-
financing, as well as (especially after the Libera-
tion) by having recourse to state funds; the latter

74

were most important because the working class
and the democratic forces had succeeded in bring-
ing about the nationalization of a big sector of the
economy. Self-financing and recourse to state
funds made it possible to obtain the capital needed
to run big modern enterprises capable of standing
up to competition which promised to become
sharper in a contracted capitalist world market.

Politically, the French imperialists had to block
at any cost the workers’ emancipation movement at
home and the national-liberation movement in the
colonies. Accordingly, they intensified the exploi-
tation of labor at home, plunder of the colonies
and unleashed war in Indo-China and North Africa.

Utilizing the split in the working class, the
monopolies and the big bourgeoisie began in 1947
to pursue a policy of supporting American im-
perialism in Europe and restricting the democratic
rights of Parilament to the point of annulling
them almost completely in June 1958.

“Integration”’ offered French imperialism a way
out of its international difficulties and provided it
with a powerful weapon for use against the people
at home. The monopolies and the bourgeoisie had
a common aim—to get the working class under their
thumb—a top priority task for the French and
Italian capitalists, who feared working-class unity
and the rallying of the democratic forces.

Why is it that, despite the industrial might of
the Federal Republic of Germany, the big French
capitalists voluntarily agreed to set up a common
market? What were they banking on in the face
of the threat from their dangerous partner?

First. Between 1953 and 1958 large-scale con-
centration, based on increased capital investments,
took place in the French manufacturing industry.
This process was supported by the government,
which carried out a series of currency and tax
measures. These factors helped to expand the pro-
ductive forces in a number of key industries and
to some extent enabled France to catch up with
her West European rivals.

Second. The phase of the cyclical boom was es-
pecially manifest over the years 1954-58. In the

eriod 1956-58 the rate of growth in France was
higher than elsewhere in the capitalist countries,
West Germany included. This fact apparently gave
birth to the illusion that the market could be ex-
panded indefinitely, an illusion that temporarily
took the edge off some of the antagonisms be-
tween the monopolies, and weakened the opposi-
tion to “integration” by small and medium em-
ployers, who thought they would be able to main-
tain their position on this market.

Third. The compromise reached between the
German and French capitalists on the Saar brought
certain economic advantages, notably to the iron
and stee! industry in eastern France, which, in

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

addition to maintaining control over a number of
Saar enterprises, has considerably strengthened
its position in the Ruhr mines.

Fourth. The exploitation of the Lacq natural gas
denosits, which recently started in the South-West,
will enable some industrial groups to gain a more
advantageous position in the Common Market.
Saint Gobain, Pechiney, Pierrefitte, Rhdne Pou-
lence and Kuhlmann—the big chemical companies
—have pooled their resources to produce ammonia,
acetylene, nitrogen fertilizers, urea, plastics and
methanol from natural gas. And, lastly, Pechiney
and Ugine, the monopoly-producers of aluminum
in France, who before the devaluation of the franc
were quoting lower prices than their European
competitors, are building two aluminum plants,
based on the cheap electrical power produced from
Lacq gas. The combined output of these firms,
together with that of a subsidiary in the Cameroons
(Alucam), will make them the biggest aluminum
producers on the European continent. An output
of 250,000 tons is envisaged by 1961 as against
the 1958 figure of some 170,000 tons.

Fifth. The discovery of important resources of
uranium will make France the biggest producer in
Western Europe. From 550 tons in 1958 production
will rise to 1,500 tons in 1962. The Crouzille plant
alone covers the uranium requirements of the
French industry at the same prices as foreign
firms are asking. Rich deposits, including the
Gabon, have been discovered in Black Africa, ex-
ploitation of which will begin in a couple of years.
French capital interested in the production of
uranium, and in association with German capital,
hopes to play a major part in the “Six,” and
Euratom will help in part to ensure this.

Sixth. The discovery of oil and gas in the
Sahara has undoubtedly been a decisive factor in
the agreement of the French capitalists to “‘inte-
gration.”” La Vie Francaise, a financial newspaper,
wrote on November 29, 1957, apropos of the
Sahara deposits: “This highly important fact has
more than an economic significance. It will again
give us the right to make ourselves heard, first
and foremost in Europe. If we can interest the
Germans, Italians and others in exploiting the
wealth of the Sahara, our entry into this com-
munity will make sense.’’ And on January 10, 1958,
this paper reiterated the same idea: ‘‘Attracting
German, Italian and Dutch capital will give full
meaning to the creation of the European Economic
Community. France can then, with head erect
and through the front door, enter the Common
Market, whereas in other fields she is patently
backward.”

French capital needs vast markets for North
African iron, lead, zinc, manganese and phos-
phates. This explains why, among the groups
favoring the Common Market, we see companies

<“f7o = =— ~~

SBP are Mmos ss

th
Bi

be
fo:
re:

gre

the

Fr
Soc
30

Der

SS ae SS eae eS SS SS

1
ic
ct

ly

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW ys

already engaged in the exploitation of, or about
to exploit, Sahara oil and other African riches as
well as monopoloy manufacturing enterprises.

The extractive industry and the biggest com-
panies in the basic industries are controlled by the
same financial groups. For them there are no con-
tradictions between the political considerations
which dictated the need for the Rome Treaty and
their own economic interests. They have no fear
of their West German rival, whether because of
the means at their disposal (the trusts of the
chemical, glass, paper, aluminum, electronics and
even the automobile industries), or of their asso-
ciation with the big American monopolies, or,
mainly, because of their agreements with big
German capitalists.

These agreements, which play a decisive role
in the Common Market, are founded upon cartel
arrangements between the big enterprises with a
view to crushing outsiders in the manufacturing
industry, stepping up exploitation of the working
class and utilizing the natural wealth of Africa.
Thus the profoundly reactionary socio-economic
nature of the Common Market is already apparent.

2. The Common Market and Intensified
Concentration of Capital

It can be said that the first consequence of the
Common Market appeared before the Rome Treaty
was signed, or at any rate, before it came into
force. This form of ‘“‘integration’” has led to
greater concentration—a feature of French and
West European economy in the postwar period.

Hitherto “‘integration’” of capital had taken
place at the bank level, and the centralization of
money capital on an all-European scale paved the
way for industrial concentration. This process
began at the end of 1956 with the formation of the
European Consortium for the Development of
Africa (Consafrique), already mentioned here, and
the establishment in September 1957 of the Euro-
pean Society for Industrial Development, followed
in 1958 by a series of other agreements. As a rule,
the French banks were the initiators, with the
Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas leading the
movement.

Accelerated industrial concentration began long
before the Rome Treaty was signed, and even be-
fore preparations for it were under way. In this
respect the following main trends could be noted
in the policy pursued by the French monopoly
groups:

First, the strengthening of their subsidiaries in
the Common Market countries.

Early this year, for example, the Compagnie
Francaise des Pétroles increased the capital of
Société Total Belgique, its Belgian subsidiary, from
30 million to 50 million Belgian francs and that of
Deutsche Total Treibstoff, the German subsidiary,

from five to 15 million DM. The latter has under-
taken to create a fuel distribution network through-

- out the Federal Republic. The German branch of

the Michelin company resumed activities in 1958
and contemplates doubling its output; this will
ensure it a 10 per cent share of the West German
market instead of five per cent.

Second, attracting more U.S. capital.

One of the aims of the currency measures taken
by the deGaulle government at the end of 1958 and
early in 1959 was to attract U.S. capital invest-
ments. A number of technical and financial agree-
ments have been signed since 1958 between U.S.
and French industrial groups; these cover, among
others, the automobile and oil-chemical industries
and nuclear energy.

Third, agreements with leading Common Market
firms, especially with West German companies.

These associations are assuming diverse forms.
One is the creation of new companies for joint
production of certain kinds of goods. Compagnie
Francaise des Matiéres Colorantes (a subsidiary
of Kuhlmann), in association with Badische Anilin,
has started a joint subsidiary, Dispersions Plas-
tiques, which has built a plastics plant in France.
Other agreements envisage specialization—that be-
tween the German Auto-Union and the French
Manurhin companies, for instance. There are also
trilateral agreements between French, West Ger-
man and American companies. The Forges de
Chatillon Commentry has signed an agreement
with the U.S. Armco Steel Corporation and the
German Thyssen Huette.

Joint use of technical services is still another
form of these agreements. The arrangement be-
tween Renault and Alfa-Romeo is a case in point.
These two companies use each other’s distribution
network: Renault distributes Alfa-Romeo’s prod-
ucts in France, while Alfa-Romeo does the same
with Renault’s cars in Italy.

There are also groupings of several big European
monopolies for the joint conquest of foreign mar-
kets. This chiefly concerns agreements between big
French and West German companies with the
object of preventing competition between them and
of sharing orders for supplying equipment to the
underdeveloped countries.

The Franco-German group, which in addition to
the Badische Anilin and Soda Fabrik includes the
Schneider concern, will build a fertilizer works as
part of the Aswan Dam scheme.

A summing up of the repercussions of this con-
centration and centralization of capital shows that
the first general result of the Common Market has
been to intensify the process of channelling capital
and profits to the big enterprises—first and fore-
most the monopolies—to the detriment of the less
developed branches. The same process will take

76 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

place in agriculture, trade and distribution. The
Common Market is simply a very powerful stimu-
lus to the development of processes which pre-
ceded it, processes which, no matter what the
perspectives of the Rome Treaty are, will deter-
mine the monopolies’ policy at the present stage.

3. The Common Market Intensifies Uneven
Economic Development

The Common Market will have still another
grave consequence—the further widening of the
disproportion between industries, and between in-
dividual regions in the “Six”? and aggravation of
their uneven economic development. Some factor-
ies will be closed, while the modern and dynamic
enterprises will profit both from the ruin of the
smaller ones and from the territorial expansion of
markets. New factories will continue to be built,
and in some cases this will involve greater in-
vestments. But the crux of the question is, where
will they go?

In our view the capital will flow into the dyna-
mic and highly concentrated industries. Indus-
tries that have recently been established, certain-
ly the electronics, electro-technical, automobile
and chemical, will be expanded to the detriment
of the more scattered industries with a greater
number of small factories which are often in a
state of relative stagnation (for example, clothing,
food, leather and other branches in France).

The UN European Economic Commission has
pointed to the grave danger of widening the rift—
already a feature of the French and Italian econ-
omies—between the modern, one might say ultra-
modern, sector with its concentration and monopo-
lies, and the technically backward sector.

With growth of the disproportion in industry,
there will be increasing unevenness between re-
gions. In France, for example, this will be to the
detriment of the west, south-west, and part of the
south. But France is not alone in feeling the ad-
verse effects of regional imbalance. Even in
Luxemburg there is a disparity between the north
and the more industrialized south. Borinage with
its coal and Flanders with its textiles are, I think,
confronting Belgium with the painful problem of
regions and industries in decline. In Germany the
net income per capita in the Hamburg, Bremen
and North Rhine-Westphalia provinces is twice as
high as in Pfalz and Schleswig-Holstein. But South
Italy and South-West France undoubtedly present
the biggest problem. Only 26 per cent of the total
capital, most of it government and not private, is
invested in South Italy, which accounts for 41
per cent of the territory of the country, 38 per
cent of the population and 65 per cent of the
natural increase.

Frontiers and national economic barriers, even
with the exercise of strict control, have, as we

know, never been insurmountable obstacles to the
export of capital. But they have (particularly over
the past thirty years) been instrumental in setting
geographical limits to the disproportion without
any appreciable upset of the international econo-
mic equilibrium.

If the Rome Treaty is carried out as conceived,
the situation will certainly change and capital will
move to the most attractive regions of the ‘‘Six.”
There is now what might be called a geographical
circle with a radius of 500 kilometers from the
center in Ostend (Belgium) in which are concen-
trated 95 per cent of the Common Market’s iron
and steel, 90 per cent of its coal, the seven main
automobile manufacturers, and seven major ports
(excluding Hamburg and Marseilles) with a freight
turnover of ten million tons. Heavy industry is
concentrated in West Germany, the Benelux coun-
tries and the North and East of France. And not-
withstanding a possible decentralization arising
from new sources of power (nuclear energy, gas
and oil) and from new synthetics which may well
replace the traditional raw materials (coal and
iron), the Ruhr-Belgium-Northeast France area
will for a long time continue to attract capital and
labor. The Euratom commission has confirmed
this, indicating that there is no purpose in build-
ing an atomic power station in a region where
the power cannot be used. Since it is uneconomic
to build plants in places without power resources,
it is difficult to foresee by what miracle the Com-
mon Market can develop such backward areas as
South Italy or Brittany (France).

The European Economic Commission has point-
ed out in connection with France that there would
be a surplus of labor in the west—from Normandy
to Vendée. We would add that there is also the
danger of a surplus in the North and a scarcity
in the East. The importance of regulating the
supply and demand of labor in the regions should
not be underrated. The problem is likely to be-
come more acute. It was precisely with a view
to absorbing the surplus labor that the Common
Market treaty envisaged the gradual abolition of
so-called obstacles to the free movement of work-
ers. This formulation is undoubtedly convenient
for the purpose of covering up one of the most
tragic developments of our epoch, one which the
Common Market can but aggravate. Needless to
say this is not a matter of making business or
pleasure trips, but of the migration of workers
driven by unemployment and poverty from areas
falling into ruin and obliged to leave their familiar
environment and not infrequently to part with their
families in order to fall in with the will of capital-
ists seeking maximum profit.

We cannot but repeat that if the provisions of
the Rome Treaty are carried out to the letter, the
“Six,” and France and Italy in particular, may in

~~

wee Hv

a. = wm 7

T* Oe 2. @

©

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW Yi |

the next few years become the scene of a grave
social tragedy.
The Common Market will mean greater impover-

ishment for the working class, for all who sell their -

labor-power. More dismissals and _ short-time,
greater exploitation, speed-up and migration of
labor can be expected. There will be no respite
in the bourgeoisie’s efforts to achieve a wage
freeze and suppress any action by the workers for
social gains; for the sake of the ‘‘common inter-
est” and “‘competitiveness,’’ the monopolies will
try to get the working ciass to relinquish their
demands for social progress.

4. Common Market Repercussions on
Agriculture

It goes without saying that the Common Market
also covers agriculture. Big industrial capital has
always pursued a policy of low prices for farm
products, at least whenever market conditions have
been conducive to this. At the same time it hopes
to keep wages as low as possible. Peasants, on the
other hand, have had to pay high prices for manu-
factured goods. Since 1948 there has been a grow-
ing disparity between the prices of farm products
and manufactured goods. This is one of the ways
of diverting surplus value from the agricultural
to the industrial sector.

The French agricultural ‘‘market,” open as it
is to foreign competition, provides industrial capi-
tal with an excellent means of maintaining this
state of affairs.

There are two types of agricultural production
in France: modern capitalist agriculture and peas-
ant agriculture. The former, developing rapidly, is
growing stronger economically; the second is in a
state of decline. But modern capitalist agriculture
is not yet producing enough of some items to
satisfy the demand, which is one of the reasons
why we still have large numbers of small and
medium producers.

Thus, alongside a technically-equipped agricul-
tural sector with high labor productivity and low
production costs, there are in France large num-
bers of backward farms not in a position to stand
up to competition. Many of these went out of
business after the First World War, but the big
capitalists think they are not being wiped out
quickly enough.

The third modernization plan recently announc-
ed in France officially envisages that annually
some 80,000 rural dwellers will have to give up
working on the land over the next few years. The
low priced products of capitalist agriculture are,
like world market prices, factors accelerating
concentration.

As in industry, there have been numerous meet-
ings between representatives of capitalist agricul-

ture in the different countries, and a number of
agreements are under discussion.

French agricultural capital is not alarmed by
the competition that has begun within the Com-
mon Market and for the following reasons:

First. The Common Market will further accele-
rate the ruin of the small producers and free con-
siderable areas of land. This will accelerate land
concentration and expand the market for capitalist
farm products.

Second. Current prices for farm produce were
fixed by the government on the demands of the
small farmers, and the big landowners are making
good use of these demands in their political strug-
gle. By simply maintaining the present price level
they .will pocket considerable superprofits.

Third. French capitalist agriculture possesses
up-to-date means of production and its high pro-
ductivity has assured it a good competitive posi-
tion on the world market.

Fourth. The prospect of an influx of foreign
workers raises hopes for cheap labor.

And, lastly, in view of the competition of foreign
manufactured goods, notably German, on the
French market, the agricultural capitalists hope to
buy them at cheaper prices.

It can be said, then, that an identical class
policy is being conducted in agriculture and in-
dustry, and the general consequences are the
same: concentration of production, super-exploita-
tion of labor, and disregard for genuine national
interests.

5. Some General Conclusions

In summing up we would like to draw a few
conclusions. Some may be regarded as final, others
as provisional, for we are speaking of things in a
state of flux and this obliges us to be prudent in
our judgment.

The Common Market has been in existence for
only a few months, and it is still too early to say
if this form of “‘integration’’ will prove firm and
durable, if it will be subject to considerable re-
vision and many infringements, and how, in the
long run, the need will arise to abandon it in favor
of other forms. This will be shown in the course
of further economic and political developments.

1. In any event it can definitely be said that the
Common Market has its roots in the processes of
the development of productive forces which induce
widening markets, technological progress, intensi-
fied concentration and consolidation of the mono-
polies. These processes enable the monopolies to
concentrate in their hands a large part of the
industrial plant, and make bigger markets impera-
tive; they are accompanied by greater inter-
locking of capital and thus pose new problems of
competition and agreements between the mono-

78

polies. But this is the general trend in present-day
capitalist economy, and the Common Market is
merely one of its possible manifestations. Political
factors have undoubtedly played a decisive role
in establishing the particular form of “integration”
implied by the Rome Treaty.

2. The Common Market is a consequence and,
at the same time, a stimulus to the concentration
of capital on an international scale. It is, above
all, a network of cartels, associations and agree-
ments between industrial and financial groupings,
between industrial monopolies and big landowning
capitalists to the detriment of small manufacturers
and small farmers.

3. West Germany undoubtedly plays first fiddle
in the Common Market, if one were to judge by
the industrial plant and the amount of capital
owned by the German monopolies. French capital-
ism, however, and this point should, we think, be
stressed, is not completely subordinate and holds
a number of trump cards. The odds are not equal.
but it would be erroneous to conclude on this
basis that West German domination is absolute.
Many aspects of the process of concentration are
still obscure — cartels, the movement of capital,
exchange regulations, the forms of competition and
the contradictions need closer study.

4. The repercussions of the Common Market on
the balance of payments, and everything connected
with upsetting the balance of trade, particularly
in France, should also be studied more thoroughly.
From a legal standpoint the Common Market is
first and fcremost a means of breaking down
customs barriers. As we know, there was only
a slight reduction in tariffs during the first year.
But they will undoubtedly be further reduced, and
this merits attention, irrespective of the cause.
Unless policy changes in any of the major Common
Market countries, or an acute economic crisis
sets in, we may expect barriers to continue to fall.

One of the gravest political and economic con-
sequences of “integration” is that it is now far
more difficult for any country to back out and
free itself without at the same time breaking th?
economic and political net enmeshing it in the
Western Union.

It must be admitted that, given the Common
Market and convertibility, the working class and
the democratic movement rallied around it will
find it harder to carry out democratic reforms,
for instance, nationalization. And indeed the mono-
polies will have more opportunities of taking capital

out of the country and of rapidly undermining the
national economy in the event of government or
political coalitions not to their liking being formed.
Conversely, the strengthening of proletarian unity
in these countries can undermine the international
monopolies.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

5. The Common Market, as a political mechanism
of the monopolies, is being used to attack and
restrict parliamentary democracy and the possi-
bilities of control, and to curtail the independence
of each of the “Six.”

In assessing the perspectives of the Common
Market these factors should be taken into account,
but at the same time—and perhaps above all—we
should bear in mind that the community of six is
not an isolated bloc, it is an element of the capital-
ist world economy in which the law of uneven
development operates with iron logic.

The French employers would naturally like to
turn the Common Market into a bloc protected
by as high a general customs tariff as possible
and based on a durable and long-term agreement
between the French and West German ruling
elements. But they do not rule the roost. Customs
tariffs were accepted only in principle and the
compromise reached through the Rome Treaty on
this point has not been finally ratified. Before it
is, the groups interested in low tariffs (the Dutch,
Belgian and partly West German) will have to
put in a lot of spade work to attain their objective.
What the end result will be is difficult to say,
especially since it will depend on the economic
climate.

But the main point is that Britain has not
relinquished its hope of depriving the Common
Market provisions of their content. Britain’s rulers
will not let themselves be squeezed out of the
European continent without a struggle, while the
French employers, and still less the West German,
are reluctant to and cannot enter into an open
conflict with Britain. Here we see the first, fairty
considerable crack in the European Economic
Community.

The second crack is the result of the presence
of the United States. If the latter upholds and
urges European “‘integration’’ and furthers the
resurgence of West German imperialism, it does
so not in order to create a market that will be
closed to its goods, and not to see an economic
bloc of greater competitive strength emerge on
the world market.

The U.S. rulers regard economic blocs, including
the Common Market, not as an ultimate objective,
but as the best way of building a capitalist world
market that would present no obstacles to their
expansion.

And, lastly, the socialist world and the national-
liberation movement are making themselves felt
more and more, and are felt by the Six too. The
Common Market holds out the possibility of a
certain reorientation of German economic policy
towards the “‘Free Trade Area,” and even east-
ward. This, undoubtedly, is a political bogey in

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 79

the eyes of the French bourgeoisie who have
always regarded the Common Market as a means

of binding the Federal Republic tightly to the

Western bloc. But the possibility exists and numer-
ous facts show that it is not being ignored by the
big German capitalists.

In the light of this perspective the Bonn-Paris
axis—the political foundation upon which the
Common Market rests—will be considerably weak-
ened and European “integration” may develop
along entirely different lines.

The national-liberation movement in Africa is
also making itself felt. Economic absorption of a
large part of Africa into the Common Market to
the benefit of the French, German and _ Italian
monopolies can take place only with the consent
of the African peoples.

The Common Market is thus threatened by in-
ternal contradictions which will grow with the
counteroffensive of the working class and the
rallying of all the victims of monopoly policy—
artisans, small farmers and small and medium
manufacturers. It is also menaced by Britain’s

Unity of the People

defensive moves, by U.S. plans and by the possi-
bility of a German reorientation.

In its present form the Common Market strikes
me as being a somewhat rickety structure which
might well develop along lines other than tiose
planned by its initiators. The basic factors of the
evolution of capitalist economy and imperialist
strategy are still valid. In one form or another
they lead to market expansion, to the concentra-
tions of productive forces in the hands of powerful
monopolies closely linked with the government,
that is, to economic “‘integration” in a variety
of forms.

With developments taking this turn the peoples
in our countries cannot remain passive. The inter-
nationalization of the economy is having ever
greater repercussions on their lives. Consequently
the job of the Communist parties is to secure
co-ordinated action to unite the victims of the
monopolies around a united working class. This
will help to preserve democracy in some countries,
to restore it in others, and its regeneration will
pave the way to a Europe without trusts, to a
socialist Europe.

and Anti-Monopoly

Forces Against European “Integration”

B. Manzocchi

ONOPOLY capital is using the Common
Market Treaty to implement a far-reaching
policy.

The November 1957 Declaration of the Commu-
nist and Workers’ parties of the socialist countries
pointed out that the capitalist countries have en-
tered a period of ‘‘a sharpening of contradictions
not only between the bourgeoisie and the working
class but also between the monopoly bourgeoisie
and all sections of the people, between the U.S.
monopoly bourgeoisie on the one hand, and the
peoples, including even the bourgeoisie, of the
other capitalist countries, on the other. The working
people of the capitalist countries live in conditions
that increasingly bring about a realization that the
only way out of their grave situation lies through
socialism. Thus, increasingly favorable conditions
are being created for bringing them into active
struggle for socialism.”

Unity of the working-class and all other demo-
cratic forces in the struggle against the reactionary
policy and the new international deals of the
monopolies, is indispensable in working to trans-

form society in a situation and aggravated capital-
ist antagonisms.

To specify the aims and forms of joint anti-
monopoly action on the basis of experience accu-
mulated by the working-class movement in each
country—that is the task facing the Communist
parties, the organized workers and all democratic
forces. This task is determined by the fact that
the social forces that have fallen victim to Euro-
pean “‘integration’”’ are, for different reasons and
in varying degrees and ways, resisting this policy.

1. The Common Market and the Need for
Unity of the Anti-Monopoly Forces

The common problem of the Western European
democratic forces is determined by the interna-
tional moncpolies’ policy of maneuvering, which,
in effect, is designed to prevent the Common
Market countries from pursuing an independent
economic policy in keeping with the national
interests.

At home this policy is expressed in the estab-
lishment of governments from which all political

80 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

groupings, other than overt Right-wing, are exclud-
ed. .On an international scale the monopolies fall
back on the ‘‘supranational’’ bodies of the Euro-
pean Economic Community set up under the
Common Market Treaty, and are finding new
economic and organizational forms to co-ordinate
the actions of big employers.

A growing number of economic and _ political
bodies is thus not subject to any kind of democratic
control.

The effects of this on the working class and
other sections are easy to perceive. Wages, living
and working conditions and democratic rights are
under attack, and increasing discrimination is
being shown against the working people and their
organizations.

The non-monopoly sections—small producers in
town and countryside and small and medium em-
ployers—face the prospect of acute crisis and
curtailed production, greater subordination to the
monopolies and the loss of economic independence.

Up to now monopoly capital has maintained an
alliance of a sort with independent producers
and non-monopoly capitalists both in industry and
agriculture. It was able to do so because the
obsolete equipment of these sections functioned
alongside the streamlined enterprises of the big
capitalist groups. This enabled the monopolies to
obtain extra profits, and the technically-backward
factories to exist alongside monopoly production.
This precarious equilibrium is likely to be upset
by the “integration.”

The biggest blow to the non-monopoly groupings
comes from the abolition of customs tariffs and
import quotas, because as long as these operated
they could get along somehow.

These sections, needless to say, hope to retain
tariffs and other aspects of protection as a means
of self-defense, and it is on these grounds that
they are strongly resisting the Common Market
and displaying the greatest apprehension.

This fact is acquiring very great political impor-
tance, being a reflection of the shift now taking
place in the system of political alliances in favor
of the working class and to the detriment of the
monopolies. This should be borne in mind in
developing action to isolate big capital in the
conditions arising out of the “integration.”

Attempts to preserve protection may prove sterile
unless other efforts are made to change the eco-
nomic policy — and not merely because of the
corporative tendency of this policy which secks
to maintain a state of affairs running counter to
the interests of national economic development,
but also because the onslaught of the monopolies
on the non-monopoly sector is being made both
in the sphere of customs tariffs and in other

economic spheres, first and foremost in matters
affecting accumulation and investments.

It is the task of the working class to make good
use of the anti-monopoly sentiments of the non-
monopoly social and political groupings associated
in one way or another with the popular forces.
The working class should establish closer relations
with them and consistently develop political initia-
tive in order to impart concrete content to economic
development and social progress, the reverse of
that contained in the policy of “integration.”

The attitude of European Social Democrats on
the problems of economic “‘integration’”’ is, as we
know, in large measure determined by their ideolo-
gical standpoint in which elements of anti-commu-
nism are interwoven with abstract speculation on
the new demands arising out of technological
progress, particularly automation.

A similar stand has been taken by those Catholic
organizations that have closer links with the
people, especially with the trade unions.

In working with these trends and groups, the
Communist parties and Left working-class organ-
izations can go much farther than engaging in
purely ideological discussion, because a good basis
exists for reaching mutual understanding and
waging a common struggle by all the people and
their political parties in Western Europe. This
struggle should follow two main directions:

a) against the Common Market Treaty;

b) for international action under the leadership
of the trade unions and the political organizations
of the working class with the aim of blocking the
way to the reactionary ‘‘international.”

We cannot dwell at length here on all the possi-
bilities for action obtaining in each country. Social
Democracy, the Catholic organizations linked with
the masses, and the numerous trade unions do not
adhere to the same standpoint in their respective
countries, and any assessment of their attitude
would have to take into account all aspects of their
policy and the situation in the particular country.

For instance, the ill-starred experience of eco-
nomic “‘integration’’ in such key industries as coal
and steel, seen in the acute crisis in the European
Coal and Steel Community, has resulted in a
considerable part of the Belgian workers — under
Social-Democratic influence — openly expressing
disagreement with “‘integraticn.”’

The governments of the Little Europe countries
are beginning to get around the ECSC Treaty
provisions. The French and West German govern-
ments are even contemplating annulling the formal
Treaty articles providing for certain guarantees
for maintaining the level of employment.

The hope of the Social-Democratic leaders that
by participating in the leading Common Market

= crPrea Se wma

Go =

ae ee aa ae

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 81

bodies they would be able to carry out a ‘common
economic policy aimed at improving conditions

for the workers, have also been dashed to the

ground. This is not surprising for neither the
representatives of the trade unions—affiliated to
the World Federation of Trade Unions—nor repre-
sentatives of the workers’ parties in parliaments
are admitted to the Common Market bodies.

The task now is to establish contact with the
Social-Democratic forces, to point out their error
in supporting the system of political and economic
relations existing in Western Europe and the
general policy which the monopolies want to im-
pose on Europe through “‘integration.”’

2. An Alternative to European “Integration”

The content of the economic policy proposed
by the working-class movement as an alternative
to European “‘integration,” and the forms of the
struggle to implement this policy, are dictated
by the specific features of the socio-economic
system in each country. The national struggle
acquires special importance in view of the attack
of the international monopolies on the independent
economic policy pursued by each country.

“Integration” gives birth to problems common
to the working people and the non-monopoly sec-
tions alike. And the demand for international
economic ties from which the national economy
as a whole, and not exclusive social groupings,
would benefit, is an integral part of the policy
of independent economic development.

European “integration” aims also at maintain-
ing and defending the colonial regime. This is
yet another important reason why the working
class and the masses fight against the Common
Market.

Independence for the colonies and _ all-round
economic and political progress for the underde-
veloped countries are essential if the Western
European countries are to achieve the social and
economic progress which “‘integration” is obstruct-
ing. To this end the working-class and democratic
movement in the Common Market countries should
show initiative in establishing relations with the
colonial and underdeveloped countries based on
equality and mutual benefit.

The people in the Common Market countries
are quite clearly interested in the independence
and development of the colonial and underdevel-
oped countries. The working-class movement in
all countries is also opposed to imperialist policy
because it aims at maintaining a ‘“‘labor aristoc-
racy”’ — the product of exploiting dependent coun-
tries, a section created for the political purpose
of dividing the working people and weakening
their militancy.

Peaceful coexistence and more trade with all
European countries are decisive factors in the
policy being put forward as an alternative to
“integration.”

The economic policy pursued by the socialist
countries in relation vis-a-vis the underdeveloped
countries, in addition to extending the political
and economic influence of socialism, is having
an impact on the economic relations between the
underdeveloped and advanced countries.

Action against European ‘“‘integration’’ should
be orientated towards establishing a broad popular
movement capable of abolishing monopoly rule
and offering in its place a policy envisaging eco-
nomic and social progress. This idea is underlined
in the joint statement issued by the Italian and
French Communist parties (December 23, 1958),
which points to the need for “struggle for a series
of economic and social transformations aimed at
limiting the rule of the monopolies, and foiling
their attempts to establish absolute domination
over the life of the country.” The statement defines
the major demands advanced by this struggle:
“nationalization of certain industries, agrarian
reform and protection for small peasant property
against arbitrary monopoly action, democratic
administration of the state sector of the economy,
and democratic control over plans for state invest-
ments in industry and agriculture. All this will
help to safeguard the common interests of the
working people and the small and medium produ-
cers in town and countryside; stimulate economic
advance on the basis of technological progress;
put a stop to predatory capitalist concentration
under monopoly guidance. In this plan a definite
place is allotted to the struggle against the Com-
mon Market Treaty... .”

It is evident that the development of political
initiative by the working-class movement on each
of the points listed will depend on the objective
economic and political conditions obtaining in the
respective countries. But the main political line
for which it is fighting is the same in all countries.
Objectively the opposite of the Common Market
policy, it is a policy in the interests of all social
sections suffering under the monopolies, and paves
the way to the economic and social advancement
of all the Common Market countries.

As we know, the international monopolies are
screening the establishment of the Common Market
with talk about ‘‘raising productivity” and “re-
ducing production costs.” To this end they are
demanding lower living standards and the closing
down of hundreds of thousands of “unprofitable’’
enterprises and farms. But despite this propa-
ganda, it is obvious that if productivity is low
and production costs high, the reason is to be
sought in the nature of the capitalist production

82 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

relations and the burden of monopoly profits and
ground rent borne by the national economy.

The production costs of handicrafts, small and
medium industry and peasant farms should be
reduced at the expense of monopoly profits and
ground rent. One of the most urgent tasks of the
working class is to win allies on this basis.

With regard to nationalization, under the existing
forms of state capitalism it is clear that national-
ization alone cannot change the character of
production relations. This was noted in the policy
statement of the Eighth Congress of the Italian
Communist Party and in the Theses of the Fifteenth
Congress of the French Communist Party. The
latter state: ‘“‘However, nationalization may become
a national demand, inasmuch as it is in a position
to prevent foreign capital from seizing the coun-
try’s wealth. . It can become a legitimate
democratic demand inasmuch as _ nationalization
facilitates the struggle of the working class against
capitalist exploiters and the monopolies.”

The policy statement of the Eighth Congress of
the Italian Communist Party said: “The danger
that nationalization, instead of abolishing monopoly
rule merely creates another form of centralized
and reactionary capitalism, can and should be
averted by broad action on a democratic and
constitutional basis aimed at giving priority, in
running the economy, to the interests of the work-
ing people and the community as a whole.”

The nature of the tasks and the form of the
struggle, we repeat, depend in large measure on
objective conditions and the political situation in
each country.

3. Italian Working People Oppose
European “Integration”

The experience of the struggle waged against
“integration” in Italy has confirmed that political
initiative and the ability of the political and trade
union organizations of the working people to mobi-
lize the masses are the decisive factor. This
determines not only the scale and intensity of the
movement but the way in which the problem
should be resolved.

The imperative need for social reform is deter-
mined by the general character of the economic
and social development of our country. The tradi-
tional system of reactionary compromises between
powerful capitalist groups and die-hard conserva-
tive ruling elements representing the interests of
the old classes, has retarded the development of
the productive forces. It has aggravated the pro-
nounced disproportion in the development of the
various parts of the country to the detriment of
the southern regions, and this has given rise to
the beginning of chronic mass unemplovment and
widespread partial unemployment—chiefly in the

countryside. On the whole this state of affairs
still continues, although industry has exnanded,
and changes have been carried out in the rural
areas, mainly in the north. Oppression by big
landowners and industrial monopolies in the past
led to a situation which resulted in provisions for
nationalization and agrarian reform being incor-
porated into the Constitution of the Republic (1947).

Thus the movement for agrarian reform, nation-
alization of industry, and non-monopoly develop-
ment of state-owned enterprises is embracing vast
sections of the people. The policy of economic
“integration,” on the other hand, implies rejection
of social reform.

That the struggle waged by the working class
and its allies for nationalization and control of
the state-owned enterprises hits the monopoly
interests hard is confirmed by the counterattack
launched by the monopolies against the state-owned
plants. This counterattack has found strong support
among government circles and in the Christian
Democratic Party.

It is essential to develop political initiative in
the working-class movement which would expose
the class nature of the government’s economic
policy, undermine the mass basis of the govern-
ment parties and help change the balance of forces
eon the political arena. Actions to liberate the
non-monopoly sections from monopoly pressure
and to develop industrial activity on the basis of
sound economic expansion and increased employ-
ment, follows the same aims. This will lead to
eliminating backwardness and low productivity in
small and medium industry and handicrafts.

A national conference on the Common Market
and Italian Industry, organized by the Communist
parliamentary group in Turin last January, dis-
cussed these problems.

The conference program lists the following de-
mands: a credit and investment policy which
would deprive the monopolies of domination over
the process of accumulation; a price policy for
the state-controlled enterprises on electric power
and raw materials which would undermine the
monopoly domination of the market.

Having due regard for the specific features of
national legislation and other points, this program
could well serve as a basis for economic and
political action in the handicrafts and non-monopoly
industries of other Common Market countries.

What is needed is a broad movement to work
out forms of economic activity which would be
independent of the monopolies and opposed to their
policy.

The working-class struggle for a new trend in
economic policy, for higher wages and better con-
ditions, acquires a clear-cut political character;
and this applies not only to the working class

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 83

but to all social sections suffering at the hands
of the monopolies. First, this struggle is one of
the major factors furthering a more even distribu-

tion of the social product and raising purchasing’

power on the home market. Secondly, and this
should be emphasized, it strikes a blow at the
monopoly-dominated capitalist structure.

The offensive launched against the working class
is counterposed by a unified program advanced
by the working people in the Common Market
countries. This program was worked out at a
meeting of Common Market countries held in Rome
last April. It lists wage and social security claims
and incorporates demands for increasing employ-
ment.

Working-class struggle for these demands was
waged with particular intensity in Italy and other
countries during the summer and autumn.

Action against the closing of factories is still
going on, and the support accorded it by the
anti-monopoly sections is an indication of its scope.
Economically this struggle does not always achieve
its aim of stopping the closures. But the practical
result politically is that it is broadening the anti-
monopoly front, drawing in new social forces.

The struggle waged in the Italian countryside
(by agricuitural laborers, sharecroppers and small
producers) is also marked by specific features.
While it has registered some important successes
in recent years, the majority of the small produ-
cers continue to be influenced and led by the big
bourgeoisie. The reactionary bloc, relying on this
base, is entering a period of new contradictions
and growing difficulties, which the Common Mar-
ket policy only serves to aggravate.

To achieve their objectives in the new conditions
of “‘integration’” the monopolies are going back
on one of their political traditions in the Italian
countryside. Whereas formerly they ‘‘supported”’
the small peasant households and helped to in-
crease their number in order to exploit them
more easily and divert them from the struggle
for land, they are now trying to liquidate them
altogether.

Initially the struggle of the Italian peasants and,
in part, of the small producers, was an expression
of their reaction to the general consequences of
the rapid monopoly penetration of the countryside.
Now, with the implementation of the Common
Market policy, the struggle has sharpened and
has become typical of those social sections who
have always sought a corporatist solution of their
economic problems. But as the working-class
struggle and the consequences of monopoly policy
acquire concrete forms, conditions are created
which make it possible to overcome the sporadic
nature of the demands of these sections and to

put forward demands envisaging a solution of
agricultural problems along anti-monopoly lines.

With the new balance of forces and modern
social relations typical of the Italian countryside,
the demand for radical reform, above all agrarian
reform, becomes an objective necessity. Agrarian
reform is essential not only because of the impera-
tive need to overcome the backwardness of the
countryside, but also because of the repercussions
of the agricultural crisis and the Common Market
on the peasants. The agricultural laborers and
small peasants are fighting for the progressive
development of farms and agricultural co-opera-
tives; for the economic reconstruction of agricul-
ture and for a credit and tax policy in keeping
with the progressive development of the peasant
farms; for full employment and higher wages for
agricultural laborers, and assured incomes for the
peasants. The winning of these demands would
safeguard the interests of the rural workers and
be a major factor in expanding the home market.

This general line in agrarian policy, a counter-
weight to monopoly policy, unites the landless
peasants and the smallholders alike. The struggle
for agrarian reform has a mass base among all
sections of the peasantry.

4. Immediate Aims

The working-class struggle against “‘integration”’
affects all spheres of economic and political life
both on a national and international scale, and
boils down to one principal aim: to replace mono-
poly power by democratic rule which, by carrying
out a policy that is objectively the reverse of the
policy of the monopolies, could create conditions
for stable economic development and social pro-
gress in the European countries.

The forms of struggle derive from the nature
of the common aim, and from the concrete condi-
tions in each country.

The experience of the Italian working-class
movement shows that political and economic con-
ditions are such that the diverse social forces
suffering at the hands of the monopolies and also
the political groups representing these forces can
take their place alongside the working class and
its trade union and political organizations in the
broad and multi-form movement against European
“integration.”” They can unite with the workers’
movement on some issues, irrespective of whether
the aims are restricted or, as frequently happens,
of a corporative character. The task of the work-
ing-class organizations, first and foremost the
Communist Party, is to formulate these aims and
establish the alliances needed to achieve them in
order to deal a decisive blow to monopoly rule.

A vital factor that assists the struggle, right up
to the conquest of power, is the entry of progres-

84

sive forces into existing democratic institutions;
for example, in parliament and in other democratic
bodies, and particularly in the organs of local
autonomous governments and decentralized local
administrations. The establishment of permanent
ties between the activities of the masses and the
struggle within the democratic institutions for ex-
tension of their authority takes on primary
importance.

Recent political developments in Italy show that
much can be achieved in this sphere. In the strug-
gle for autonomy in the provinces of Valle d’Aosta
and Sicily (where special provisions and conditions
for autonomy are envisaged) prejudice against
Communists was overcome, and non-proletarian
political forces joined in a united front with the
working-class parties during the election campaign
and after the electoral victory of the progressive
forces.

Commenting on the election results in Sicily,
Comrade Togliatti noted that the political mono-
poly of the Christian Democratic Party could be
broken only ‘‘with the help of political movements
and agreements going beyond the framework of
the traditional homogeneous alliances, which the
working-class parties seek to conclude. In this
sense frontism has had its day, but the need to
establish contacts and co-operation with new forces
striving for democracy, regeneration and economic
progress, for which we too are working, still
exists” (Unita, June 10, 1959).

The experience of anti-monopoly action in Italy
shows that the forms of struggle depend on the
actual situation. The imporant thing is to give full
play to initiative in all spheres of activity: legis-
lation, parliament, municipalities and other local
government bodies, political, trade union and co-
operative organizations, mass struggle (strikes and
trade union actions). Formulation and implementa-
tion of policy should be carried beyond the narrow
confines of the monopolies and their governments.
The issues should be placed before the people. The
masses with their energy and ability should help
in formulating this policy, in supervising its imple-
mentation. The Communist Party, the vanguard of

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

the working class, plays an important part in lead-
ing the movement and defining its aims.

In face of the international alliance of the mono-
polies, unity and concerted action by the working-
class and democratic movement in all the Western
European countries constitute the cardinal factor
in developing the struggle against economic “‘inte-
gration.” This should be brought about in each
country with the object of achieving the common
democratic aims—political and economic indepen-
dence, higher wages and full employment, protect-
ion of the social sections threatened by economic
“integration.” Only by effecting far-reaching social
changes can these aims be attained.

United and concerted action should first be im-
plemented in the trade union struggle and in
joint action for common aims.

This action should involve as many trade union
and economic organizations as possible (and not
only among the workers), and the social forces
interested in seeing the working-class movement
win its demands. This applies above all to the
co-operative and peasant associations as well as
to industrial associations embracing the urban
middle sections.

In the course of this struggle and parallel with
it, there can emerge initiative to establish con-
tacts, alliances and agreements with the political
forces and groups, including those political parties
that traditionally uphold the conservative social
structure. Joint action by the representatives of
workers’ parties in parliament and other elected
bodies can play a big part. It is a matter, in the
final analysis, of proceeding along the path charted
by Lenin in The State and Revolution, which point-
ed to the need ‘‘to develop democracy to its logical
conclusion, to find the forms for this development,
to test them by practice, and so forth.”

Lenin stressed that, ‘‘taken separately, no sort
of democracy will bring socialism. But in actual
life democracy will never be ‘taken separately’;
it will be ‘taken together’ with other things, it
will exert its influence on the economy, will stimu-
late its transformation; and in turn will be in-
fluenced by economic development, and so on.
Such are the dialectics of living history.”

[gS a ee

. WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 85

Art That Serves Mankind

ANDOR and sincerity are the distinguishing
features of I Put My Cards on the Table,*
the new book by Louis Aragon.

The new work is a collection of articles and
speeches written and delivered during the past
five years. In its pages we find the ready response
of a famous writer to events in political and liter-
ary life, and reflections on current problems of
creative art.

The issues on which Aragon speaks his mind
are not unimportant ones. The writer opens wide
the doors of his “laboratory” and engages in a
lively conversation with the reader. What is more,
he makes his reflections known not only to friends
but also to those who reject his ideas. And this
Ieaves an imprint on the character of the dialogue.

The contents range in time from the speech
delivered by Aragon at the French Communist
Party Congress in June 1954 to a brief talk about
his poem Elsa in Moscow last May. This period,
quite an eventful one, witnessed a keen struggle
in the sphere of ideology and aesthetics. The wave
of revisionism, as we know, also affected the
realms of artistic creation. However, forward-look-
ing intellectuals in all countries, including France,
rallied to resist the nihilistic onslaughts against
the ideological and aesthetic principles of pro-
gressive art.

Aragon has always been in the vanguard against
the reactionaries; his creative work is closely
linked with life. His best works appeared during
these years—the poems The Eyes and Memory and
An Unfinished Romance, which are artistic reflec-
tions of events taking place in the world, of the
problems engaging the minds of people.

Aragon responded to all burning issues in arti-
cles and speeches. Addressing the Second Congress
of Soviet Writers he dealt with the need for social-
ist realism, and its prospects under capitalism,
particularly in France. At the 13th Congress of
the French Communist Party he raised the ques-
tion of partisanship in art, of using literature and
art in the struggle for emancipation of the work-
ing class, for a cultural renaissance. Resolutely
denouncing the revisionist attempts to dethrone
socialist realism, Aragon upheld this creative
method. ‘‘Socialist Realism Is Not Dead’’—runs the
headline of an article (May 1957) levelled against
ideological opponents. In a contribution to the

L. Aragon, J’abats mon jeu, Paris, Les Editeurs Francais
Reunis, 1959,

journal Europe on the occasion of the 40th anniv-
ersary of the Soviet Union and of Soviet literature,
the birth of socialist realism is described as ‘“‘a
revolution in the dreams” of humanity.

In the polemic which developed around his Holy
Week (1958), he defends his principles passionately
and consistently against the bourgeois men of let-
ters. In the course of the argument Aragon wrote
the articles ‘“The Author Speaks about His Book,”’
“Call Things by Their Right Names,” and ‘The
Secret of Creative Art” in which he championed
the progressive aesthetic outlook.

One of the features of the book is that Aragon
examines the vital problems of ideology and aesthe-
tics in the light of his own writing experience,
agonized thinking and searching. Pondering over
the highly complex and contradictory problems and
describing his doubts, Aragon, however, ‘never be-
trays the firm convictions of the realistic writer.

Noteworthy is the brief preface to the book
under review. Using the expressive medium of
jargon, Aragon tells us that in his own work and
in the ideological and aesthetic struggle in which
he is taking part, he constantly comes up against
people playing with marked cards. “I am playing

. . in a world in which all cards are manipulated.”
But this does not worry him. His intentions are
honest and he plays honestly. He denounces the
card-sharpers, boldly showing his own hand, con-
vinced that he will win. “I want to win not by a
fluke . . . but by virtue of obvious superiority.”

Aragon does not name his opponents, but they
can be discerned easily among the bourgeois critics
of his Holy Week and, of course, among the pub-
lishers of the weekly Arts who, not without ulterior
motives, hastened to reprint this preface. ‘I know
that in putting my cards on the table,’’ Aragon
writes, “I am presenting you with a weapon that
can be turned against me . . . However, beware.
My weapon cuts the hands of those who take it.
Don’t rejoice, thinking that I have exposed my
defense, that I have left my flank uncovered.
Don’t be in a hurry to rejoice, thinking that you
have won a point. When the game is played in
the open everyone can see and judge the chances.”

There is a logical connection between this alle-
gory and the article “Call Things by Their Right
Names” (actually the speech delivered to the youth
in the Mutualité Hall), his statements about Holy
Week and his reaction to the bourgeois critics.
Those who delight in sensations or, to use Aragon’s

86 WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

words, play with marked cards can, of course,
quote out of context phrases from the above-men-
tioned article and interpret them in their own
fashion, indulging in wishful thinking. Aragon,
they will say, has seen the light, he has feelings
of remorse. Then, seizing on the point about the
need to “‘revise” socialist realism, they will tri-
umphantly exclaim: ‘‘Bravo! Aragon has changed
his views.”

Aragon, however, indignantly denounces _ this
kind of juggling. In the article “Call Things by
Their Right Names’? he makes an excursion into
the history of the writing of the series of books
entitled The Real World—from The Bells of Basel
to The Communists and his latest Holy Week. The
critic and the literary historian will find in these
works brilliant samples of progressive writing, of
the realism known as socialist realism. Aragon
poses interesting general problems, problems that
are still unresolved, or only scantily explored. He
expounds his views on art. The reader of this
series will not fail to notice a desire to ‘‘interpret,
elucidate and assimilate” the experience gained
by literature in other countries, to “imbibe from
it everything that furthers human progress.”

The consistency with which Aragon upholds the
principles of realistic art is worthy of the deepest
respect. ““. . . For a quarter of a century I have
upheld the concept of realistic art in conformity
with my socialist outlook.” The method of socialist
realism, he maintains, should be carried forward
and enriched, with due account being taken of
all that is progressive in other literary trends.

The discoveries made by others, says Aragon,
should not be ignored, we can make them pur-
poseful. “. . . If by my own writing and by the
attention I give to the writing of others, I am
able to contribute more to this cause, this means
that I am making better use of my life and of
my abilities. . . .”

Aragon is interested in the “‘variety of the ways
taken by people, the stages through which uncer-
tain thought advances towards the truth.’”’ In this
connection he shows how he understands the tasks
of socialist realism which embodies and expresses
artistic progress. His concept, he tells us, is an
open one: “‘As distinct from the dogmatic approach
I have an open mind about socialist realism, a
concept which enables the writer claiming to be
a socialist realist to enrich himself and to enrich
his art, imbibing it not only from the particular
corner in which he stands but from the world at
large, testing himself through the critical eyes
of his outlook.”

Aragon’s views on the indissoluble bonds linking
socialist-realist art with the national tradition and
the entire experience of world literature are most
important. They are of particular value especially

if we bear in mind the conditions in which socialist
realism is developing in France, where reaction-
aries are doing everything to isolate this trend,
depicting it as sectarian, alien, and imported.
Aragon’s experience and his striving to assess
and foster everything clean and healthv in the
works of other writers in France and elsewhere
is the experience of the strugele to extend the
sphere of influence of progressive writing.

For Aragon socialist realism is “the wings which
give flight to literature.” You will but clin your
wings, he says, if you alienate yourself from
other writers.

And, further, had there not been in socialist
literature a bridge connecting it with the whole
body of literature, he would not have been able
to approach those writers in the capitalist coun-
tries who previously ‘“‘had written in a different
way or had been unaware that their writing had
something in common with socialist realism.”
Therefore, it is easy to understand the keen inter-
est displayed by Aragon in the works of young
French writers in his article ‘‘Eternal Spring.”

At the Second Congress of Soviet Writers
Aragon spoke about the relationship between
socialist realism and the national tradition in art.
He referred to this also at the French Communist
Party Congress in June 1954. We cannot but agree
with him when he says that every important
work of art reflects life and is linked with the
national tradition. It does not appear as the work
of some genius cut off from life, it is part of ‘“‘the
body of literature, of the literary legacy of the
nation.”” From this indisputable truth Aragon
draws far-reaching conclusions for socialist real-
ism in general and for his own work in particular.
The aim of socialist realism is not “the triumph
of a definite style but the triumph of a world
outlook.”

Aragon uses the expressive medium and artistic
methods found in other trends in French litera-
ture (interesting in this respect are his poem
An Unfinished Romance and Holy Week). Be-
cause of this he had to engage in a sharp polemic
with bourgeois critics who divorce form from
content, and who, ignoring the ideological design
of the author and resorting to distortion, claim
that Aragon is abandoning for formalistic trends
the very principles of realism he himself pro-
claims.

Counterposing living, creative thought to schol-
asticism and dogmatism, Aragen holds _ that
socialist realism is not a rigid concept which can
be studied once and for all; there is no prescrip-
tion for it. Socialist realism, he says, should be
considered not as a metaphysical category but
as a constantly developing trend. “Nowhere can
it be set in the mould of a fixed definition.”

— we

ss ww wa few ee ey ee’.

oe ee

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 87

Aragon does not pose as an evangelist of the
infallible. He stresses the need for constant
searching. “. . . I respect those who make no
claim to knowing all the answers, those who are
searching . . .” And he himself seeks a solution
to his burning problems through the “pain of
experience.” ‘Every man,” he says frankly,
“comes to the truth in his own way, and if I can
discern the weakness in this or that movement,
still fresh in my memory are the false steps
I made myself, fresh enough to enable me to
realize that I may repeat them.”

It would be wrong to say that the judgments
pronounced by Aragon in his articles and speeches
are indisputable, correct in every detail. He
writes, for example: ‘In my view it would not
be serious to look on socialist realism as an
established art, opposed to other competing
trends.”” How to understand this phrase? Judging
by Aragon’s works we know that he in no way
denies the fact that socialist realism has firmly
established principles. Behind this art is a wealth
of experience and tradition — the experience of
Gorky, Mayakovsky, Sholokhov, Neruda, Becher
and many other distinguished writers, including
Aragon himself. The reader would fall into error
were he to take this, and other phrases (that ap-
pear vague to us) out of context and judge the
book in isolation from the other works of Aragon.
In other books, for instance in his Soviet Literature,
Aragon pinpoints those features of socialist art
which have taken shape and which have been al-
ready defined by progressive aesthetic thought.

Aragon shows in his latest book that socialist
literature is not something stagnant and inert,
that it is a living and developing literature
constantly in need of enrichment. He rejects the
allegations and prejudices of the critics in the
anti-socialist camp who repeat ad nauseam that
socialist realism calls for cut-and-dried schemes,
formulas and stereotyped methods. Aragon re-
futes these inventions; he points to the fresh-
ness, the diversity of forms of socialist realism
and its irreconcilability with any dogma. We
would not do him justice were we to select
quotations out of context and’ interpret the oc-
casional vague phrases.

We agree with Aragon on the main thing, that
is, when he says that artistic practice should be
variegated, that creative work is least of all
subject to regimentation and that works of art
are not created “by voting.’’ The reader objec-
tively perceives his depth of thinking and the
nobility of his aspirations.

The issues ccnfronting him as an artist are
viewed by Aragon from the standpoint of the
interests of progressive art. He opens wide the
doors of his “creative laboratory,” unfolds be-
fore the reader the secrets of his ‘‘trade,”’ and the
views and principles which he upholds passion-
ately and with firm conviction. The writer stresses
that he stands for an effective realism, which is
far removed from the ‘realms of pure art,” for
a realism which “aspires to help man and to light
his way forward.”

If we were to speak about the observations
which the reader could make after becoming
acquainted with Aragon’s ‘“‘laboratory,”’ the first
would be his concern for truthful reproduction
of events recorded. In a speech delivered in Saint-
Denis, in the talk ‘“‘The Author Speaks About His
Book” and in the article ‘‘Call Things by Their
Right Name,” Aragon reveals the secret which
enables him to achieve this fidelity. The secret is
contained in the vast amount of work he has done
in studying history. Aragon tells us how he
studies the scene of the events he describes, how
the fresh impressions help him to animate his
characters.

The wealth of his observations is embodied in
his characters, whether they are contemporaries
or personalities drawn from history. I wrote
The Communists, he says, at a time when I was
“intoxicated with the feeling that I could check
my writings against the background of current
events.”

In the symposium I Put my Cards on the
Table, attention is drawn by the elaboration of
the “‘particular,”’ purely professional problems con-
fronting the writer: for example, his view on the
role of detail in realistic works, which enables
the writer to describe both the ‘‘trees and the
wood,’ or the account of how really vivid,
stereoscopic characters are created.

“One Should See Clearly in His Sphere of Ac-
tivity” —is a subheading in his speech to the 1954
Congress of the French Communist Party.
“*, . . When people enter upon a new and decisive
period of their struggle,” says Aragon, ‘‘the duty
of the artist and of the communist writer is to
see clearly in their spheres of activity and to
define the means needed in order to serve the
future of humanity.”

The book I Put my Cards on the Table is per-
meated with this idea.

E. TRUSHCHENKO

88

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

What’s Wrong With U.S. Foreign Policy? *

"Mr. C. L. Sulzberger, the author of this thought-
ful and painful inquest on the postwar foreign
policy of his country, is a man with first-hand
experience of his subject. Of him it can be said
that he was born into the newspaper world with
a portable typewriter in his hand. The Sulzberger
dynasty has long been associated with the New
York Times, and the forty-seven year old author,
continuing the tradition, has spent nearly half
his life as a roving reporter for that newspaper.

He has, we are told, met almost every im-
portant political military and economic figure in
Europe, Asia, Africa and the United States both
during and since World War II, and he justly
claims that the “laboratory where our diplomatic
actions may best be observed is the world in
which they are applied.”

Sulzberger is forthright and outspoken in his
judgments. “In 1945,’”’ he tells us in the preface,
“we were the greatest nation in terms of physical
strength and in terms of an unchallenged moral
position . . . Yet, and there I will quote a former
American ambassador, William C. Bullitt: ‘Since
the Second World War our foreign policy has
led us from a pinnacle of power and security
into the valley of the shadow of. death’.”” The
United States, he continues, ‘“‘has lost the ini-
tiative in its propaganda contest with the Soviet
bloc. Recently we have gone from defeat to
defeat.”

Let us dwell for a moment on these truly dole-
ful words and particularly on the defeat suffered
in the propaganda competition. If the United
States has lost the race it has certainly not been
for lack of trying. In recent years dollars have
been lavished by hundreds of millions on world-
wide propaganda. The countries of Europe, Asia,
Africa and Latin America have been inundated
with journals, newspapers, books and pamphlets
subsidized by Washington—all of them lauding
U.S. foreign policy and the American way of life
and, of course, by way of contrast, denouncing
communism and the way of life in the socialist
countries.

Every day Radio Free Europe and the Voice of
America blare forth in the same strain. And as
if radio and press were not enough, the balloon-
borne leaflet—the latest propaganda gadget—is
brought into action. Yet, after years of this
sustained effort, with dollars flowing like the Mis-
sissippi in flood-time, the result, as Sulzberger
puts it, is “defeat after defeat.”

*C. L. Sulzberger. What’s Wrong with U.S. Foreign

Policy, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1959, 255 pp.

Why is this so? After all, American businessmen
are unsurpassed in the art of salesmanship, in
advertising and ‘“‘selling’’ things to the public,
from baby powder to kitchen gadgets. The trouble
is that not even the slickest salesman can sell
goods that smell, no matter how glossy the wrap-
ping. And anti-communism, the main product of-
fered over the past decade by the super-sales-
men of the Voice of America, smells far too much
of the late Dr. Goebbels.

“‘Anti-communism,” writes Sulzberger, ‘‘as Hit-
ler discovered, is no policy.”” He puts the blame
for this squarely on the State Department and on
its sister body the Central Intelligence Agency
headed by Allan Dulles. In his view the shaping
of American foreign policy is left too much in the
hands of whoever happens to be Secretary of
the State Department—in the years covered by
the book this was mostly the late John Foster
Dulles. ‘‘From Truman’s administration on,” he
writes, ‘‘there has been a steadily increasing ten-
dency by our executive branch to involve us in
a condition of war (as in Korea) or to risk in-
volving us in such a condition (as in Lebanon)
without prior legislative approval’ (my emphasis
— J.G.) (p. 29).

During the Dulles regime the State Department

revelled in what Sulzberger describes as ‘‘apo-
calyptic’’ jargon, expressed in such phrases as

“agonizing reappraisal,” ‘brink of war,” “retali-
atory striking power,’ etc., which, he says,
frightened America’s friends more than “‘its

enemies.’’ Apropos of this he relates the following:
On the eve of the Republican Convention (July
1952) that nominated Eisenhower for President, he
(Sulzberger) met General Lucius Clay, an ardent
Eisenhower supporter. Clay, for reasons of his
own, was greatly disturbed by the use of the
words “‘retaliatory striking power’ in the national-
defense plank of the Republican platform. Later
that same day Sulzberger had lunch with General
Eisenhower and his brothers, Milton and Earl.
Eisenhower in reply to a question by Sulzberger,
said that he had not seen the actual text of the
draft program, but that Dulles had given him a
verbal outline.

What did you think of the reference to retaliation,
asked Sulzberger.

“Do they use that. word,’”’ exclaimed Eisenhower.
“T simply won’t accept it. I would rather not run
than accept it.”

The evening of the same day found the indefatig-
able Sulzberger having a drink with Dulles. When
told that Eisenhower was angry about the re-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 89

taliation phrase, Dulles (who had got it included)
said, “Maybe I can do something about it.’ He
did. It disappeared from the text. But, says
Sulzberger, “‘both the words and the theory crept
back into Dulles’s public statements. And they
became the heart of his famous ‘brink of war’
approach as Secretary of State.”

We talk glibly in our propaganda, Sulzberger
continues, about the “free world’ as distinct
from the ‘captive peoples.” But, of the seventy-
two countries comprising this free world ‘“‘forty-
nine are governed either by dictatorships or
oligarchies.”” Why, he asks, do we deceive our-
selves?

Turning to another State Department deception,
the boast that it never interferes in the internal
affairs of other nations, the author bluntly de-
clares: “. . . This is simply not the truth. We
interfered up to our elbows to assure a govern-
ment in Greece upon which we could look with
favor. We interfered in France, during the late
nineteen forties . . . . During the 1948 Italian
elections we grossly interfered; our ambassador
toured Italy making speeches deliberately cal-
culated to sway voters.” And further “when a
regime sympathetic to our opponents was instal-
led in Guatemala, we ousted it.”

Sulzberger is equally outspoken in condeming
the witch hunt practices which have hounded
“brilliant individuals” out of the professional
Foreign Service.

The policy and personnel blunders of the late
Secretary of the State Department can be traced,
he thinks, to the Central Intelligence Agency
headed by his brother Allan Dulles. So suspicious
is this body and so little confidence has it in the
people that it takes ‘from six to nine months for
American citizens to have their loyalty checked.”
What is more, U.S. secret police abroad ‘“‘go
around interrogating the families, friends and
acquaintances of respectable American citizens
in foreign countries.”

These are courageous words, and Sulzberger is
to be commended for saying them, but after
doing so and after his debunking of the ‘‘free-
world” demagogy, one rubs one’s eyes upon en-
countering the sentence: “The philosophy of de-
mocracy and those freedoms it implies are still
the free world’s exclusive property”! (p. 79.)

That, to put it mildly, is a rather dubious con-
clusion. It would hardly be shared by statesmen,
say, like Prime Minister Nehru of India and
President De Valera of Eire, who were in-
carcerated in jails for fighting for freedom from
Sulzberger’s “‘free world.”

This kind of thinking shows that symptoms of
the ills which he finds in the State Department

can be found in the author too. The impression
is heightened when we read the words: “Many
of our friends in Asia are confused by our failure
to meet communism’s race-color Hate-America
campaign”’ (p. 77). The words are by an American
Negro and apparently for this reason they are
quoted with relish by Sulzberger to impart
strength to what, one infers, he feels is a pitifully
weak argument.

As a seasoned traveller and experienced ob-
server, Sulzberger, who has visited the Soviet
Union and other socialist countries, cannot but
know that hatred of America or of any other
country, capitalist or not, is utterly alien to their
people. If he really has doubts on this question we
would recommend him to have a word with his
friend Mr. Harriman, or better still with Vice Pres-
ident Nixon. Nixon, during his visit to the USSR,
complete with seventy-two newspaper men, far
from finding the slightest trace of anything even
faintly resembling a ‘‘Hate-America campaign,”
was pleasantly surprised both by the warmth of
his welcome and by the respect in which the
Soviet people hold his country.

Before visiting the Soviet Union Mr. Nixon took
the trouble, and this is to his credit, to memorize
in Russian the words Mir i Druzhba (Peace and
Friendship), which achieved worldwide currency
at the time of the Youth Festival in Moscow in
1957. Heaven also knows what the deceased
McCarthy would have thought or done had he
heard his friend, Mr. Nixon, proudly chanting
Mir i Druzhba in Moscow, Leningrad and beyond
the Urals. For our part we are glad that the
words of friendship coined by young people were
used to such good purpose by a visiting statesman.
It shows that even capitalist politicians can pick
up pearls of political wisdom from the mouths of
babes and sucklings.

Sulzberger protests angrily that the American
Negroes are regarded as “‘second-class’’ citizens,
that the “‘cancer of Little Rock has eaten deeply
into our cause.”

We would go farther and say that nearly a
hundred years after the Civil War, a war fought
to abolish slavery, the 18 million Negroes in the
United States of America constitute truly captive
people. And when we, like Sulzberger, sympathize
with these captives, does that mean that we (and
Sulzberger) preach a Hate-America campaign?

Needless to say, the Voice of America and
Radio Free Europe, loud and eloquent about the
need to ‘‘free the unfortunate captives of commun-
ism,’ maintain a discreet but hardly reputable
silence about this aspect of the American way of
life. And Sulzberger, too, closing his critical eye,
accepts the absurd captive peoples thesis.

90

What manner of people are these ‘‘captives of
communism” for whom crocodile tears are so
freely shed?

“In the Soviet Union, the first of the socialist
countries, they are the scientists and workers who
sent up the first Sputniks and whose Lunik—
the Moon rocket—has ushered in the space age;
they are the men who built the atomic power
stations, the atomic-powered icebreaker, and the
airplane which made the non-stop flight from
Moscow to New York; they are the workers
whose production achievements have enabled their
country to reach a rate of industrial growth
several times that of the United States; they are
Ulanova and her sister ‘captives’ who when
they appeared -in ‘Romeo and Juliet” in New
York and other American cities the theatre
critics exhausted their stock of superlatives in
describing the performances; they are the Soviet
film producers who have won a place of honor
in world cinematography; the Soviet athletes who
only recently were roundly applauded by their
American rivals when they carried off the honors
in an American-Soviet contest; and at Melbourne
three years ago where the cream of the world’s
athletes gathered for the Olympic games, the
Soviet contingent returned home with a splendid
collection of world records and Olympic gold,
silver and bronze medals. As to the military
prowess of the Soviet soldier ‘“‘captives” in defend-
ing their country, the one word Stalingrad tells
the story. Some slaves! Some captives!

Or take China. For generations before China’s
650 million people became State Department
“captives” ten years ago, that great country had
been the happy hunting ground of all the imperial-
ist powers. Foreign police patrolled the streets of
the so-called International Settlement in Shanghai,
foreign gunboats patrolled the Yangtze and other
rivers and more than once bombarded China’s
cities and killed her citizens. Down the years
Chinese patriots had dreamed of the day when
their country, having smashed the fetters of
feudal and semi-colonial bondage, would take its
rightful place among the nations of the world.
That day came in 1949 when the people, led by
the Communist Party, after routing the last of
Chiang Kai-shek’s American supplied and equipped
armies, proclaimed their republic. Now there are
no imperialist concessions and settlements and no
foreign police in Chinese cities; the days of

gunboat and dollar diplomacy have gone forever.
The people are industrializing their country with
seven-league strides; they are taming their tur-
bulent rivers, winning the battle of both floods
and droughts, long the curse of China, and, as
Sulzberger tells us, their educational program
is “turning out more _ teachers,

doctors, and

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

engineers each year than the United States”
(pp. 194-195).

His judgment on the U.S. ostrich policy of
denying diplomatic recognition to China, “this is
insanity,” is one with which few will disagree.

It is a pity that Sulzberger, who, as we have
seen, is an acutely critical American, fails to
prescribe with the same skill as he diagnoses.
His cure for the afflictions of American foreign
policy is every bit as bad as the disease corrod-
ing it.

What is one to think, for example, of the words:
‘“‘We must convince our own populations that this
is a time to spend more on guns than on butter”
(p. 63). Does not this echo the sinister slogan
with which Hitler plotted and prepared World
War II?

For a man who loathed Hitlerism and all its
works, it is strange to find Hitlerian overtones,
as in the case of the guns before butter slogan,
creeping into his prescriptions. In 1952, we read,
General Eisenhower, then NATO commander,
before presenting his annual report, consulted the
author about the advisability of using the term
“international communism.” Eisenhower, opposed
to rhetoric of this kind, wanted something better.
Sulzberger advised the general that it would be
wiser to use more “realistic” expressions such
as ‘‘Soviet imperialism’? or ‘Russian expansion-
ism.’’ To his regret other editors took the matter
in hand—his suggestions were rejected and the
“ultimate draft emerged with all references to
‘international communism’ back.” Sulzberger’s
formulation clearly echoed the “‘stem-the-flood-of-
Bolshevism” propaganda artfully used by Hitler
in his dealings with the men of Munich.

It is in the discussion of what he terms ‘“‘Soviet
imperialism” that the Sulzberger story is most
contradictory. He reproduces an interview with
Nasser which completely explodes the myth of
his own creation: “They” (the Soviet Union),
said Nasser, “have helped us greatly . . . When we
faced great economic pressures and really needed
aid, they gave it. Our money was frozen in
Britain and America; so we asked Russia for
petroleum. They agreed at once. When you re-
fused to supply us with wheat, they did. When we
asked for a loan, they lent us 200,000,000 roubles.
And there are no ties. They haven’t made a single
political request. It may seem strange; but that’s
what happened—no single request’’ (p. 166). Thus
President Nasser, who will hardly be offended
if we describe him as an anti-Communist, ex-
poses the nonsense of the “Soviet imperialism”
charge. And as it was with Egypt so it is with
all the countries benefiting from Soviet aid.

Can the same be said about U.S. aid? Sulzberger
writes about the “generosity” of it. The plain fact

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 91

is that little of this aid finds its way to the poorer
countries. Political and military considerations,
not the poverty of the recipient, determine the
scale of the U.S. aid, its purpose and its geo-
graphical direction. West Germany, for example,
a much more developed country than, say, India,
and with a much smaller population, qualified
between 1945 and 1954 for $3,659 million in grants
compared with India’s share of about $100 million;
in 1951-54 the Latin American countries with an
overall population of 170 million shared $101 mil-
lion in grants, while Yugoslavia with 17 million
inhabitants qualified for $325 million. According
to Sulzberger, Yugoslavia’s isolation from the
socialist countries is ‘‘a consequence of U.S.
foreign policy” (p. 102). In the Far East untold
billions are expended on Chiang Kai-shek, who,
protected by the guns of the U.S. Seventh Fleet,
must surely be the costliest of the State Depart-
ment’s motley legion of displaced pensioners.

Does democracy follow in the wake of the
“aid”? Let us turn to Sulzberger for the answer.
“One consequence,” he says, ‘is the spread of
military dictatorships imposed by armies we
build up.” Who are the friends of the State
Department, its cronies? ‘““‘We preach democracy,”
he writes, sardonically, and with “‘no sense of em-
barrassment, we ally ourselves with Franco,
Salazar, Batista, Field Marshal Sarit, and the
slave-owning King Saud” (p. 234).

How can the United States claim to be anti-
colonial when it retains ‘“‘absolute control of
Okinawa for an indeterminate period.” Our pre-
sence there, he continues, is ‘‘a form of that
colonialism which we condemn in others.’ And
he foresees Okinawa becoming “‘the Cyprus of the
Far East.”

Sulzberger seems to think that if only American
diplomatists and propagandists were as clever
as their counterparts in the socialist countries, all
would be well with U.S. foreign policy. Now that,
while complimentary to the socialist world, is
hardly the nub of the matter. If American
foreign policy has failed to win popular support
the reason is not that the U.S. lacks skilled
diplomatists and voluble propagandists. These it
has. What it hasn’t got, as Sulzberger points out,
is a policy in keeping with the times. That is
why it is going ‘from defeat to defeat.”

Unlike their NATO counterparts, the statesmen
and diplomatists in the socialist part of the world
offer not the negative policy of using force against
capitalisra, although, naturally, they dislike ca-
pitalism every bit as much as the capitalists dis-

like socialism, but a positive policy, the policy
of peaceful coexistence.

Instead of Sulzberger’s ‘guns before butter”
prescription, their prescription is one of more
butter. The Soviet Union, for instance, which has
already surpassed the United States in overall
output of milk and butter, has announced its
readiness to compete with the great transatlantic
power not in making guns, H-bombs and nuclear
rockets, but in creating an abundance of the good
things of life for all people.

The socialist countries’ prescription for the ills
now besetting the world were clearly formulated
in the far-reaching proposals for universal dis-
armament which Nikita Khrushchov submitted to
the United Nations during his historic visit to
the United States. His idea to destroy the stock-
piles of all armaments, disband all armies,
abolish the war ministries and general staffs has
gripped and enthused the masses in all countries.

Humanity, relaxed, is breathing much more
freely after Khrushchov’s mission of peace to the
United States, after his stirring call for universal
disarmament at the world’s greatest forum—the
tribune of the United Nations.

Here, surely, we have confirmation of the
Sulzberger thesis that if U.S. foreign policy
grounded on cold war and anti-communism is
going from “defeat to defeat,” the foreign policy
of the socialist countries, grounded on peaceful
coexistence and competition with the capitalist
countries, is going from victory to victory. The
moral should be clear, even to the Pentagon.

And in spring, when President Eisenhower re-
turns the visit to the USSR, he will be received
with a warmth and hospitality that will convince
all his countrymen of the friendship of all the
Soviet people for the people of the United States.

It may be that Mr. Sulzberger will be among the
journalists accompanying the President on his
Moscow visit. If so, he will be able to tell the
readers of the New York Times that the ‘“‘Hate-
America” campaign in the Soviet Union is yet
another myth fabricated by the mischief-making
cold war propagandists. And it may well be that
the outcome of this historic exchange of visits
by the heads of the two great world powers will
mark a turning point in their relations as will
enable Mr. Sulzberger to devote his considerable
journalistic talent to another book which this
time, in the new era, could have for its title:
“Righting the Wrong in U.S. Foreign Policy.”

John GIBBONS

Luiz Carlos Prestes. A situacao politica e a luta
por um governo nacionalista e democratico.
The Political Situation and the Struggle for a
Nationalist and Democratic Government. Rio
de Janeiro, Editorial Vitoria, 1959, 74 pp.

HE booklet under review is the first in the

Series of Political Documents put out by the
Vitoria Publishing House in Brazil. Its aim, as
the author (leader of the Communist Party) notes
in the preface, is to ‘“‘compare the policy outlined
by the Declaration (March 1958) with the ob-
jective facts and experience gained by the Com-
munists . . . to define the perspectives and tasks
posed by the present-day situation.”

Prestes cites facts testifying to the economic
progress made by the socialist countries and
their policy of peace. He reviews the events that
have taken place in the world since the publication
of the Declaration, and shows how the world
communist movement has grown. The _ interna-
tional climate being what it is, North American
imperialism is finding it more difficult to retain
Latin America as a reliable hinterland. The
people in Venezuela, Colombia and Cuba have
overthrown the tyrants of U.S. imperialism. The
Communists parties in the Latin American
countries are growing in numbers and strength.

The author examines the situation in Brazil and
points to the sharpening antagonism—the main one
at the present stage—between a developing na-
tion, on the one hand, and the U.S. imperialists
and their agents inside the country, on the other.
The government’s financial and economic policy,
mainly subordinated to U.S. monopoly capital,
aggravates all the other antagonisms in Brazilian
society and worsens the conditions of the working
people. This situation cannot but lead to mass ac-
tion for a new policy by the government. Con-
ditions now favor extending the national front.

“At the present stage,” writes Prestes, ‘“‘the
class struggle is subordinated to the national
struggle against U.S. imperialism. The primary
duty of the Communists is to take an effective
part in the nationalist movement, constantly to
strengthen it and to act jointly with the other
forces. This in turn calls for combating dogmatic
and sectarian concepts which are often cloaked in
ultra-left phraseology and, while invoking ‘defense’
of principles, simply lead to opportunist pas-
sivity.”’

In conclusion, Prestes sets forth the urgent
problems facing the country: an independent
foreign policy of peace, independent and _pro-

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

gressive economic development, agrarian reform
in the interests of the peasants, a higher standard
of living, strengthening and extending demo-
cratic law. The Communists, he says, are con-
vinced that the people will take the road of
progress.

Proletarian Solidarity in the Fight for Peace
(1817-1924).

Moscow, Sovetskaya Rossia Publishing House,
1958, 560 pp.

HE World Peace Movement recently marked

the tenth anniversary of its first World Con-
gress (Paris-Prague, 1949). The movement is the
product of the long struggle waged by the peoples
against war and those who plot war. It had its
sources in the Great October Socialist Revolution,
which inscribed on its banner Lenin’s humane
appeal: ‘‘Peace to the World.”

The book under review, a collection of docu-
ments, was prepared for publication by the
Central Archives of the Soviet Union in co-onera-
tion with the archives of Albania, Bulgaria, China,
Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic,
Hungary, Korea, Poland and Rumania. It des-
cribes the solidarity of the peoples in the fight
for peace during the years immediately following
the October Revolution. It contains 445 documents
which reflect the action taken in defense of the
young Soviet republic during the war of inter-
vention (1917-1920), against the war threat and
for recognition of Soviet Russia (1921-1924).

Before the Revolution Lenin wrote: “Only the
working class, when it wins power, can pursue a
peace policy not in words . . . but in practice.”
The first decree of the Soviet Government was the
Decree on Peace. All over the world the people
hailed this revolutionary call and demanded uni-
versal peace. In Berlin, London, Hamburg, Vienna,
Budapest and Paris workers, soldiers and sailors
held meetings and demonstrations in support of
this Decree.

Reproduced in the book are press reports on
the anti-war movement and the peace resolutions
adopted at public meetings. Here is how the
Rumanian Socialists expressed their sentiments:
“Working people! Peace, the most precious pos-
session of the people everywhere, was secured
not by Pope, emperors, kings, landlords or
factory-owners; it was won on the barricades in
Russian towns by the blood of the revolutionary
workers and peasants inspired by socialism.” On
January 4, 1919, L’Humanité reported that it
lacked space to publish all the reports of resolu-
tions expressing the ‘‘socialist and revolutionary
sentiment’”’ of the workers.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW 93

The revolutions in Germany and _ Austro-
Hungary, the revolutionary battles in Finland,
Poland, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia,
the acute class struggles in Britain, France, Italy,
the United States and other countries, the ap-
pearance of Soviet republics in Hungary and
Bavaria, and the rise of the national-liberation
movement in the colonies and dependent countries
—all testified to the international solidarity of
the working class and its ability to uphold the
October Revolution as their creation, as their
future. Working-class action in the capitalist
countries, which tied the hands of the imperialists,
facilitated the victory of the October Revolution.

Those present at the Jubilee Session of the
Supreme Soviet of the USSR, devoted to the 40th
anniversary of the October Revolution, applauded
N. S. Khrushchov when, on behalf of the Soviet
people, he expressed heartfelt gratitude to the
working people of all countries for their aid
and sympathy.

The book, a vivid, moving picture of the recent
past, shows the struggle and international solidar-
ity of the masses in the fight for peace and
progress.

Reminiscences of Anti-Japanese Guerillas. Vo-
lume I. Pyongyang, Institute of Party History of
the Central Committee, the Korean Party of
Labor, 1959, 227 pp.

N the communist education of the people, so
important at this stage of completing socialist

construction, a prominent place is allocated to
study of the revolutionary traditions of the Party.
The book, a good help in this respect. was pub-
lished as study material for a future textbook on
the history of the Party.

The authors draw a vivid picture of the guerilla
war. The anti-Japanese war waged by the re-
volutionary workers, peasants and _ intellectuals,
under the leadership of the Korean Communists
headed by Kim II Sung, developed in the northern
border regions of Korea and in the eastern
areas of Manchuria. It continued for fifteen years,
until the liberation of Korea by the Soviet Army.
The guerillas delivered telling blows to the Japan-
ese invaders.

The guerilla warfare, the highest stage of the
liberation movement of the Korean people, was
accompanied by Communist-led political and
economic action—the founding of underground or-
ganizations, strikes, peasant actions, student de-
monstrations, sabotage and by boycott of the
measures taken by the occupation authorities. A
broad anti-Japanese United Front was established
and conditions created for building a Marxist-
Lenininst party in Korea.

The book shows the high morale of the Commun-
ists—their confidence in the triumph of Marxism-
Leninism, love of country, the fellowship forged
in the grim battles, the will to achieve the victory
of the revolution, indissoluble bonds with the
people and a profound spirit of proletarian inter-
nationalism.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW

NEW BOOKS

(Books are printed in the language of the country of publication; the titles here are
given in English.)

G. Atanasov. Impact of the First Russian Revolu-
tion on the Working-Class Movement in Bul-
garia, 1905-1907. Sofia, the BCP Publishing
House, 1959, 280 pp.

Bourgeois Nationalism and Socialist Patriotism
(Theses). Budapest, Kossuth konyvkiado, 1959,

38 pp.

R. Vetiska, C. Hruska, P. Reiman, The Communist
International and the Czechoslovak Working-
Class Movement. Prague, Statni nakladatelstvi
politicke literatury, 1959, 158 pp.

I. Dvorkin. Critique of the Economic Theories of
the Right-Wing (West German and Austrian)
Socialists. Moscow, Socekgiz, 1959, 467 pp.

Gh. Gheorghiu-Dej. Articles and Speeches. Bucha-
rest, Editura politica, 1959, 679 pp.

C. Godoy Urrutia. Education and Politics. Santiago,
Tierra y escuela, 1959, 230 pp.

G. Grilli. Big Capital and the Right-Wing Catholics.
Milan, Parenti editore, 1959, 548 pp.

O. Grotewohl. Towards a Peaceful, Democratic
and Socialist Germany. Symposium. Berlin,
Deutscher Zentral Verlag, 1959, 140 pp.

The 2Ist Congress of the CPSU on Theoretical
Problems of Communist Construction. Collec-
tion of Articles. Moscow, Pravda Publishing

House,

1959, 135 pp.

Law in the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Budapest,
Kozgazdasagi es Jogi konyvkiado, 1959, 391 pp.

K. Marx, F. Engels. The German Ideology. First
Edition in Spanish. Montevideo, Ediciones
pueblos Unidos, 1959, 684 pp.

G. Mozhayev. International Cultural Contacts of the
USSR. Moscow, Znaniye Publishing House, 1959,
48 pp.

The Polish United Workers’ Party. Resolutions,
Appeals, Instructions and Documents of the
Central Committee. VII.1944—XI1I.1945. A vol-
ume of documents compiled by the Party
History Institute of the Central Committee of
the Polish United Workers’ Party. Warsaw,
Ksiazka i Wiedza, 1959, 296 pp.

Fifteen Years of the People’s Democratic State
and Law. 9.1X.1944—9.IX.1959. Sofia, Science
and Art, 1959, 483 pp.

W. Ulbricht. Socialist Economic Development since
1945. Berlin, Dietz Verlag, 1959, 796 pp.

Ho Chi Minh. Selected Articles and Speeches.
Moscow, Gospolitizdat, 1959, 802 pp.

S. Herzog. The Agrarian Movement and Land
Reform in Mexico. Mexico-Buenos Aires, Fondo
de cultura Economica, 1959, 604 pp.

Economic Progress in Bulgaria. 9. IX. 1944—9. IX.
1959. Symposium. Sofia, Science and Art, 1959,
327 pp.

WORLD MARXIST REVIEW:

Problems of Peace and Socialism

(monthly)

3-Month Special
Subscription Offer

(December 1, 1959 to March 1, 1960)

RATES:
$5.00 for 18 issues; $3.50 for 12 issues.

VALUABLE BOOK PREMIUMS FREE WITH EVERY
NEW SUBSCRIPTION.

Your Choice of One of the Following Clothbound Marxist Classics:

#1. DIALECTICS OF NATURE—F. Engels (496 pp.)

#2. MATERIALISM AND EMPIRIO-CRITICISM—V. I. Lenin (391 pp.)

#3. THE HOLY FAMILY—K. Marx & F. Engels (299 pp.)

a4, — OF CAPITALISM IN RUSSIA—V. I. Lenin
pp.

Subscribe NOW!

PROGRESS BOOKS
42-48 Stafford St.
Toronto 3, Canada

Please enter my subscription for World Marxist Review.
Enclosed is $5.00 for 18 issues [_]; $3.50 for 12 issues []
Please send me premium |. []; 2. (1): 3.0; 4.0

NAME 2 Pe ee eae emery

(please print)

ADDRESS

Please include 25 cents for exchange and bank charges.

Editions of the Journal
“PROBLEMS OF PEACE AND SOCIALISM"

EDITIONS IN ENGLISH
(World Marxist Review):
Central Books Ltd.,

37 Grays Inn Road,
London, W.C. |., England

Progress Books,
42-48 Stafford St.
Toronto 3, Ontario
Canada

FRENCH EDITION:

(La Nouvelle Revue Internationale)
Societe Parisienne d'Edition et
d'information 9, Boulevard des Italiens
Paris (2e) France

Librairie Du Monde Entier
5, Place Saint-Jacques
Bruxelles

Librairie Rousseau,
36, rue J. J. Rousseau
Geneve

RUSSIAN EDITION:

Stredisko pro rozsirovani tisku,
Praha 6, Sadova 3
Czechoslovakia

CHINESE EDITION:
Guoz!l Shudian,

38 Suchouhutung,
Peking, China

ALBANIAN EDITION:
Ndermarja Shtetnore Botimeve
‘Naim Frasheri'’, Tirana

Problemas
hs La PAZ World
) pA, SoCd ALAS Marx;

1 COMMANIIMA ist:
eview

eo
——————

Probie’ \ oy
pms

intel A SZOCIALIZMES
Sozialismes AKERDESEL

Probleme
des Friedens
und des

Sozialisme®

Probleme

it st socialism
e ¥ COUMAAK

BULGARIAN EDITION:

Raznoiznos,
|, Rue Tzar Assen,
Sofia

CZECH EDITION:

Artia, Praha 2,
Nove Mesto, Ye smeckach 30

DUTCH EDITION:

Progressief Algemeen Vertaalbureau,
Chr. Snouck Hurgronjehof 22'',
Amsterdam-W

GERMAN EDITION:

Deutscher Buch-Export und -Import
GmbH,
Leipzig C |,
HUNGARIAN EDITION:

Kossuth Kiado, Budapest, V
Vorosmartyter 4

ITALIAN EDITION:
Libreria Rinascita, Via delle Botteghe
Oscure 2, Roma

JAPANESE EDITION:

Nauka Ltd.,
2, Kanda-Zinbocho
2-chome, Chiyoda-Ku, Tokyo

KOREAN EDITION:
Central publications distribution office,
Phyongyang, Korea

Leninstrasse 16

& Joblen 2

Be § Oo

. tern

MONGOLIAN EDITION:

Mongolgosknigotorg,
ul-Stalina, Ulan-Bator

POLISH EDITION:

Pp, K. W. Z. “RUCH*.
Wilcza 46

Warszawa,

RUMANIAN EDITION:

Directia Difuzarii Presei,
Palatul administrativ C.F.R.,
Bd. Dinicu Golescu, Intrarea G,
Bucuresti

EDITIONS IN SPANISH:

Agencia de Distribucion de
Praha 6, Sadova 3

Prensa,

Administracion,
Apt. Nacional 1253,
Bogota, Colombia

SWEDISH EDITION:
Arbetarkulturs forlag,
Kungsgatan 84,
Stockholm K

VIETNAMESE EDITION:
Nha xua't ban Hoc tap,
61, Rue Nguyen-Du,
Hanoi.